Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Regional Policy

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on consultations between his office and the Commission of the EEC with regard to regional policy.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): Mr. George Thomson, the EEC Commissioner responsible for regional policy, recently paid a two-day visit to Northern Ireland in the course of which he had discussions with my right hon. Friend and with a wide range of interested people. I have also had meetings with Mr. Thomson and his officials in London and in Brussels.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will his right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State follow up these matters with the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Howell: These are matters that will be the concern of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does regional policy come within the responsibility of the new Executive in Northern Ireland? Will the Executive discuss regional policy directly with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or will it be reserved entirely to the Westminster Government?

Mr. Howell: The Executive would certainly be concerned with regional policy and would discuss it. The main aspects would be matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who is responsible for overall United Kingdom policy. As for relations with the South, regional policy matters could go on the agenda on the basis of the consent of both sides or of that of the future Council of Ireland, if so wished.

Mr. Stratton Mills: What arrangements will there be for an outlet for the Northern Ireland viewpoint in Brussels?

Mr. Howell: In my main answer I gave an indication of that, in the sense that the views of Northren Ireland are already being clearly heard in Brussels and were clearly put to the Commisioner when he recently visited Belfast, Londonderry and other parts of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend need have no doubt that the views and interests of Northern Ireland are and will be heard in Brussels.

Assembly

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on 28th June.

Mr. David Howell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Duffy: Does not the Minister agree that it is in the interests of the widest possible basis of political expression of the electors next Thursday and of the highest degree of participation that candidates and leaders of political parties avail themselves of free television time, and that any one of them should hesitate before refusing, for fear of taking a hammering from journalists, lest his refusal should veto the appearance of other candidates or jeopardise such programmes? Is not this one occasion when the vital need for political exposure should not be sacrificed to the customary requirement of political balance?

Mr. Howell: This is a matter on which candidates and parties must decide how they want to expose their political views before the election.

Mr. McMaster: What arrangements is my hon. Friend making for security between now and the election?

Mr. Howell: Security needs are constantly under review, and there will be adequate and properly organised security on polling day. I hope that this matter can he handled fully by the police—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—but if security needs unhappily arise the resources will be there to meet them fully.

Captain Orr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Northern Ireland Assembly to have its first meeting.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Once the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill has been passed, the date will be determined after consultation with the leaders of the parties elected to the Assembly.

Captain Orr: In the light of the legal difficulties that might arise about a formal meeting of the Assembly, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of starting with an informal meeting of the Assembly before it meets formally? It might then be easy to have the kind of consultative session that could be useful to determine whether the edifice envisaged in Clause 2 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill could ever be brought into being.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I should be most cautious in replying to my hon. and gallant Friend. After all, one of the first needs of any Assembly is to have somebody to preside over its deliberations. If there were a meeting without anyone being in charge of the affair at all, we might find considerable difficulties. Therefore, the first business of the new Assembly must be to elect its presiding officer. It cannot do that until the Constitution Bill has been passed. I think that there are great advantages in having a formal first meeting. Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop informal consultations taking place before the Bill has been passed. At the moment, I am inclined to the view that the right course is to wait until the

Bill has been passed and then have the formal first meeting of the Assembly to elect its presiding officer.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully endorse the approach that he has outlined? When his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) talks about a consultative process, it would seem that that is just another effort to bypass the Bill that is currently going through this House.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not know that I necessarily detected that approach in what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend. Nevertheless, it is important to face hard facts. To have an Assembly of any kind informally, without any rules of order, with no purpose before it, and with no one officially able to preside over it, might be a difficult proceeding.

Mr. Maginnis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to have a social gathering prior to the special functions to be undertaken by the Assembly would be very useful? In this respect it would be following the precedent set by the Prime Minister, who invites the new boys to Parliament during their first week to assist him at No. 10 Downing Street.

Mr. Whitelaw: A formal meeting is one thing and a social gathering another. I have never been averse to social gatherings.

Intimidation (Report)

Mr. Tope: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish the latest report of the Community Relations Commission in Belfast on the social problems created by intimidation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell: Publication of the report is a matter for the Community Relations Commission, but I understand that a summary will appear in the next issue of the Commission's journal "Community Forum".

Mr. Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but will he ensure that the recommendations of the working party of the Community Relations Commission are published in due course, and


make known to the House the action he proposes to take on this serious problem?

Mr. Howell: I agree that this is an extremely serious problem. A working party, chaired by the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission, has been established, and it is not for me to anticipate its conclusions or how it wishes to present its recommendations. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears about full recognition being given to the serious situation. A number of agencies are at work, such as the Task Force and the Public Protection Agency. Those agencies are all concerned with intimidation, and it is a matter of which my right hon. Friend is closely aware and which we have under constant scrutiny.

Mr. Maginnis: Does not the Minister agree that the question of intimidation will continue until such time as the IRA lays down its arms?

Mr. Howell: The question of intimidation will certainly continue until those on all sides are prepared to come under law and order.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This problem of intimidation is not an easy one, but it does not involve just the IRA, although IRA members must be the greatest exponents of intimidation, in the very nature of things. It happens in Protestant areas as well. We read and hear a great deal about intimidation, and it relates not just to housing, though undoubtedly that has led to large numbers of people being moved from one part of Belfast to another. Do I understand that only the recommendations are to be published and that it will be a matter for the Community Relations Commission to decide whether we should see the full text?

Mr. Howell: No. I was talking about the outcome of the deliberations of the working party that is being set up. The summary of the Community Relations Commission report which was referred to in the original Question is to be published in the next issue of the Commission's journal.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I recognise the enormous social problems created by intimidation, but will my hon. Friend look at the position of owner-occupiers who are forced out of their houses? The

recent scheme announced by the Housing Executive to purchase such properties is a move in the right direction. However, the main criterion is that premises must be vacant for six months. In that time houses can be almost completely destroyed by vandals, yet compensation is based on the value of the premises after vandalisation. Surely this is wrong.

Mr. Howell: I recognise the seriousness of this problem. However, may I point out to my hon. Friend that Question No. 8 directs itself to precisely this problem?

Policing Services

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the future policing of disturbed areas of Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Howell: At present the policing of disturbed areas has to be undertaken jointly by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army. It is intended that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should take over full responsibility for policing in all areas.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am grateful for that reply, but will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to place clearly on the record of this House—if someone will condescent to print it—that there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that have been deliberately circulated by people who ought to know better that Her Majesty's Government intend to supersede this magnificent force, to which we are so grateful—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—in parts or in the whole of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howell: Yes. I gladly place on the record that there is no truth in these rumours.

Mr. McNamara: What thought are the Government giving to the enormous problem of making the policing of former Republican "no-go" areas and, presumably, Protestant "no-go" areas more acceptable to the populations in those areas? It is a regrettable fact, but a fact, none the less, that in many areas the RUC is not acceptable as a fair and impartial police force. What is the police force doing to remedy the situation and win back the confidence of the people in those areas?

Mr. Howell: We are well aware of the problem, but we have to be careful about the meaning of the word "acceptable". At the moment there are extensive operations by the Army and the RUC in a number of areas, and the hope must be to return normal policing services to all areas. That is what all the people must surely want.

Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention of splitting the police force in Northern Ireland, and that he will not respond to Republican propaganda along these lines, which is designed to undermine the morale of our police?

Mr. Howell: I have given a firm assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), and I do not think I can go further than that.

Mr. Stallard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I view the subject-matter of this Question as one of the most important problems yet to be solved in the Northern Ireland crisis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of us believe that there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of what might be termed "normal" crime in the Six Counties in recent months? Some of it has been attributed to the IRA or the UDA, but it is normal thuggery, hooliganism and protection rackets. Some of us are disturbed at the hon. Gentleman's apparent complacency, which comes through the lack of constructive proposals for the future policing of the Six Counties.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is right in his analysis of crimes. Some very unpleasant crimes have been committed. But I cannot see any ground for his use of the word "complacency". The efforts of the RUC in maintaining law and order have been highly successful. Sentences totalling 281 years, plus one life sentence, were imposed by the courts in May of this year alone. In that month 104 people appeared before the courts, 80 of whom were found guilty. The RUC has been highly successful in prosecuting the war on crime. It remains a desperately serious problem, and "complacency" is not the word to use here.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: Unfortunately, some violence continues; mainly explosions, although there have been recently some clearly sectarian murders. At the same time, the security forces are achieving important captures of illegal arms, ammunition and explosives. So far this year, 732 terrorists have been charged with security offences.
The security forces will continue to combat violence, whatever its source, and seek to protect the lives and property of the community.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will my right hon. Friend explain the strategy behind the introduction of military police into police stations in trouble-free areas, as distinct from the areas referred to in the previous Question, especially where the RUC reserve is at full strength? Does he agree that this extension of Army involvement into ordinary law enforcement is likely to damage the morale of the RUC at a time when there is pressure on Her Majesty's Government to phase out the Army?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have no evidence that the military police are being used in the circumstances that my hon. Friend suggests. However, wherever the military police are being used, they are under the command of the Chief Constable of the RUC. If my hon. Friend has evidence of specific instances in which this is happening, I shall be pleased to look into it. Our main purpose is to help and supplement the work of the RUC with military police in the difficult areas. That is the purpose of the military police reinforcements.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State referred to the continuation of sectarian murders, which is going on on both sides. Will he comment on the unfortunate murder of Mr. Herron's brother-in-law and the feelings of the security forces in this regard? What action is being taken in East Belfast against the intimi-


dation, extortion and blackmail that is taking place at the moment?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong for me to comment on a case that is still under investigation and where police inquiries are still continuing to seek those who may have been responsible for this murder. I could not be expected to comment one way or the other. Intimidation, threats and the rest must be dealt with from wherever they come. Whatever the source, they will be dealt with by the security forces to the best of their ability. The evidence of arrests and what has been done by the security forces in recent months shows that this is exactly the purpose that we have in mind.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Since our admirable security forces cannot be everywhere at once, does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has come when every man in Northern Ireland should be permitted to carry arms to protect his family and himself? So many murderers seem to drive off with impunity from the scene of their crimes that if I were a citizen of Northern Ireland I should be sorely tempted to carry a gun by day and night, whatever the law might say.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can see the attractions from the individual's point of view, but my whole desire and determination is to reduce the number of arms about the place in Northern Ireland. Legally held arms under licence are comparatively few in number. We have taken action on this. Illegal arms are another matter, and they will be dealt with ruthlessly wherever they are found to be held, because the damage that a vast number of illegal arms can do is intolerable.

Mr. Stonehouse: There will be widespread support on both sides of the House for what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Can he throw any further light on steps that he intends to take in the future to get access to illegal arms held by various factions of the IRA, and now by various factions of the UDA? Will he consider a house-to-house search in certain parts of Belfast?

Mr. Whitelaw: In general terms the right hon. Gentleman asks me to throw more light on further measures that might be taken. If I were to do that it could

be counter-productive. The information that we are receiving from the general public through the robot-phone that we have and in many other ways is increasing all the time. The fact that people are prepared to come forward with information is extremely encouraging. Whenever that information seems well founded, searches are undertaken, and considerable successes have been gained on the basis of information. However, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House will expect me to go into detail on this matter.

House Purchase

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Building Societies Association in relation to the problems arising under the house purchase scheme, so as fairly to apportion between the owner and the building society the moneys received in relation to each house where the valuation is substantially less than the original purchase price.

Mr. David Howell: I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Discussions with the Building Societies Association are continuing.

Mr. Mills: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that a major social problem is involved here. Does he recognise that the scheme prepared by the Housing Executive, which is a great step forward, is very much in the nature of a salvage operation to help people who, through intimidation and other circumstances, are in a most difficult position? Does he accept that it would be unsatisfactory if the building society or the mortgagee had to take the full amount of compensation, which might be less than the current valuation of the premises, due to these entirely unsatisfactory conditions? Will he undertake that if a voluntary scheme cannot be prepared the Government will consider some form of legislation?

Mr. Howell: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. As he knows, the intention of the scheme is to relieve cases of acute hardship and offer help to those who have been deprived. It is not a scheme for full compensation for loss, nor could it be.


I take the point about the difficulties of building societies. This is a complex matter. Discussions are going on and I think that they must be allowed to continue. However, we are aware of the urgency of the problem.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition have had representations from deputations and a great deal of correspondence about the situation that is developing, particularly in the Belfast area? We support the representations that have been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). Will the Minister consider this issue sympathetically.

Mr. Howell: I appreciate the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Prices

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for increases in the price of manufactured foodstuffs have been allowed by the Price Commission since the beginning of phase 2.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications the Price Commission has had for increases in manufactured food since its inception to the nearest available date.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The information requested by hon. Members is a matter for the Price Commission, which makes announcements about its work from time to time.

Mr. McNamara: As the President of the United States had a Watergate on food price increases and introduced a freeze on them, and as we have had a flood gate of food price increases, may I ask the hon. Lady why, instead of passing the buck to the Price Commission, the Government do not introduce a freeze on all food prices?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that Watergate and food prices have nothing in common. The

Price Commission is publishing information for pre-notifying firms about all price increases that it accepts as being within the limits set by the code. I am aware that the Labour Party has been trying to make something of this point—[Interruption.] I said "has been trying to make something of this point"—and that its motion was rejected by the House on 7th May.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the world prices of the raw materials that food manufacturers are using have risen enormously over the last eight months and that, therefore, the margin that food manufacturers have been allowed has been eroded, leaving little profit? Does she also agree that there is a great need for further investment if our food processing industry is to continue to lead the world, particularly in Europe?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Opposition must be well aware, from the actions being taken in countries throughout the world, that the pressure on the world supply of food is now such that world food prices affect the markets in every country.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Lady must be finding it very difficult and embarrassing to hide behind the Price Commission. Is she aware that from the housewife's point of view the credibility of the Price Commission is collapsing before her very eyes? Our postbags certainly indicate that this is the situation. Does the hon. Lady agree that rather than the Price Commission becoming a watchdog, in the eyes of the community it is becoming more like a lapdog?

Mrs. Fenner: The Price Commission is operating in accordance with the code approved by Parliament. All permissions given are strictly within that code.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend remind me whether, when there was a so-called freeze under the Labour Government, food prices were exempt from any kind of control?

Mrs. Fenner: The Labour Government made no pretence that they could impose a freeze on fresh foods and on seasonal factors. Although we have been through a seasonal period, when the seasonal food factor has risen by 30 per


cent., in the last winter of the Labour Government the seasonal food factor went up, in the same period by 28 per cent.

Mr. Buchan: I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it is a bit much to make that assertion when the increase in prices under this Government during the last three years has been twice that of the last three years of the Labour Government.
May we revert to the Price Commission? The British housewife is concerned whether it is effective. Is it not the case that, as it operates only in the margin of profit, if shops were overcharging before they are allowed to continue to overcharge now? Is it not also the case that the Price Commission, because of its narrow remit, refuses to investigate any cases of overcharging in the shops? If she says "No", I should point out that I have a letter from the Price Commission to say so.

Mrs. Fenner: I must accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the letter from the Price Commission, but shops were not permitted to overcharge during the standstill period. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen, in the Press release issued yesterday by the Price Commission, that there were 116 approved price increases up to 15th June, that of that figure, 27 were in the food sector, and that of those, 13 increases amounted to less than 6 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what change in the general level of prices has occurred in the last three years; and by what amount the expenditure on food of the average family has risen since June 1970.

Mrs. Fenner: Information is not yet available for the full three years since June 1970. However, between the second quarter of 1970 and the first quarter of 1973 the General Index of Retail Prices rose by 23·6 per cent. and average weekly household expenditure on food as recorded in the National Food Survey by 23·2 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: Is the hon. Lady aware that yesterday the House received confirmation of the terrible increase in the price of housing land and houses, and

that today we are given no encouragement by her answer, since it confirms the fearful and entirely harmful increase in the price of food? Is the hon. Lady aware that this was not what was promised in June 1970? Would the hon. Lady care to offer a forecast or make a promise about the movement of food prices during the next 12 months, or does she no longer feel responsible?

Mrs. Fenner: I should not care to offer a forecast, for obvious reasons. As I said in reply to the first Question, a good deal of the increase over the last few months is due to world market prices, and I cannot make a forecast on those. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman referred to other matters that are outside my control. The increase in expenditure on food represents the sum of 49p per person per week, and that should be related to the increase in wages over the same period.

Mr. Farr: One deplores the rise in food prices that has undoubtedly occurred in recent years, but will my hon. Friend tell the House how the Government's actions have enabled those in real need and necessity—pensioners, the sick and the disabled—to cope with the way in which these food prices have risen?

Mrs. Fenner: First, we initiated the annual review of pensions. As that was previously done biennially, the new system is an improvement and means that we are able annually to consider increases that affect particularly the most vulnerable in our community, namely, the disabled and the elderly. Secondly, by means of the family income supplement and the up-rating of benefits we have been able to ensure that rising prices do not bear too hardly upon those in our community who are most vulnerable.
As my right hon. Friend said earlier this week, elderly folk have always had difficulty in making their pensions go round, and Meals on Wheels have been provided for many years in order to improve the dietary needs of elderly folk who live alone.

Mr. Ewing: May I take the hon. Lady up on the question of world food prices and raw materials? Will she undertake to investigate the position in those countries from which we get our raw materials and


then tell the House how it is that the cost of living there is not increasing at the same rapid rate as it is here?

Mrs. Fenner: It is increasing at the same rate in those countries as it is here. This is a general world pattern.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available percentage figures for the increase in food prices since 18th June 1970.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food since June 1970.

Mr. John Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far food prices have risen since June 1970.

Mrs. Fenner: Between 16th June 1970 and 17th April 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 34·1 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Minister agree that these figures show that, while the face of capitalism might be unacceptable to the Leader of her party, the body of capitalism is getting fatter and more bloated every day? Are not these figures the living reason why old-age pensioners are scratching around in the supermarkets, looking for scraps? What on earth was the Price Commission head appointed for, at £15,000 a year—to put prices up?

Mrs. Fenner: In real terms, old-age pensioners are better off now than they were under the last Government. As I quoted in answer to a previous question the percentage increase represents 42p per week to the pensioner; the pension for a single person has so far increased by £1·75 per week, and by October it will have increased by 55 per cent. since this Government took office.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since 1970, overall expenditure on food has risen by 16·5 per cent., overall expenditure on pensions and benefits by 35 per cent. and personal savings by 38 per cent.? Does not this prove the hypocrisy of the charges of Labour Members? Will my hon. Friend stop apologising for something that we have no reason to apologise for?

Mrs. Fenner: I thank my hon. Friend. We should not apologise for ensuring that the old-age pension has risen by 55 per cent. since we took office. Hon. Members opposite will be aware that
the United Kingdom is highly dependent on world food supplies and is thus vulnerable when those supplies come under pressure, as has happened recently.
That is a straight quote from the Glasgow Herald, of Monday 11th June.

Mr. Cox: In view of those shameful figures, can the hon. Lady give any indication of the effect that the latest bumper bundle of price increases, which were approved last week, will have? The figures that she has given today show that under her Government the food bill for the average family with two children has risen by over £2 a week. Will she now ask the Prime Minister whether, at long last, he will redeem the pledge that won him the last election—to cut prices at a stroke?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Member refers to the food bill for the average family. He should also, in fairness, have referred to the average wage increase over the last three years. Perhaps he would like to listen to the figures of the wage increases—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, I know that that he would not, but he is going to hear them just the same. For a farm worker, the wage increase has been £6.35 a week and for a National Health Service ancillary hospital worker it has been £5·73. Measured against that is a rise in the cost of food of 49p per person per week.

Mr. Buchan: The people are getting sick of two things—[Laughter.]—and they are both in front of us. We are sick of the increase in prices, which is now double that of the entire period of the Labour Government. Is the hon. Lady not aware that it is time that the Minister of Agriculture or the Prime Minister himself stood up to deal with these questions instead of leaving them to the hon. Lady? The Prime Minister, who made the pledge, should now either apologise to the British people or resign.

Import Duties

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom


from outside the EEC are now subject to import duties or levies.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): The answer is the same as that given to the right hon. Gentleman in reply to his Question on 14th June.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have themselves imposed food taxes on mutton, lamb, pork, bacon, eggs, fish, butter, cheese, fruit and vegetables?

Mr. Godber: I confirm precisely what was in the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I also tell the right hon. Gentleman that on entering the European Community we accepted certain obligations, which we are now carrying through.
Charges are imposed on the following items of food which were not subject to charges before: pork offals, canned pigs' tongues, whole hams, lard, butter, beef, beef sweetbreads, beef tongues, and rice other than whole rice. Those are the only items on which taxes were not imposed before.

Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend say what effect changes in the level of import levies have had on food prices?

Mr. Godber: Since our entry into the Community, I have made it clear on various occasions that the effect has been minimal so far. The expected cost in 1973 is an addition of 1½ per cent. on food costs.

Mr. David Clark: The right hon. Gentleman referred to charges being imposed on certain items. Is that the same as taxes?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that "taxes" is the correct word. These are charges. There are levies in certain cases, and compensatory amounts in others; there has to be a balancing effect in regard to some, because some reduce the price of Community food coming to this country. Therefore, there are charges and balancing compensatory amounts. It is not so simple as to enable one to put it in the way that the hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at the same time as

levies were introduced on these few items, purchase tax and SET were reduced on all food items?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. It is true that the Government have removed the food taxes imposed by the previous Labour Government.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further proposals he intends to make for reform of the EEC common agricultural policy.

Mr. Godber: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) on 17th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 1680–81.]

Mr. Deakins: In view of the Prime Minister's statement early this week that in the autumn there would be a complete review of the common agricultural policy, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he sticks to his point of view that the basic principles of the CAP are sacrosanct?

Mr. Godber: I accept, in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition did, that the basic principles of the CAP had to be accepted as part of our accession agreement. I have never varied from that position, but that does not mean that there cannot be some significant changes in the way in which the CAP is operated, and I have indicated in othe House various ways in which that could be done which would be helpful to all consumers in the Community, and to producers.

Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend lay before Parliament, in the form of a Green Paper if not a White Paper, the general outline of the proposals that he proposes to make?

Mr. Godber: I should like to consider the point made by my right hon. Friend. The proposals for reform of the CAP will come from the Commission. We are giving our own thoughts at all levels to the Commission, and in the Council of Ministers generally, over a period of time. We are not tabling specific papers to the Commission, but


we shall be playing an active part in the discussions in relation to this matter, and on many occasions in the Council of Ministers I have indicated our line of thinking. It is not the case that we shall be putting forward formal documents in the sense that my right hon. Friend indicates.

Mr. McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with six of my hon. Friends, I visited Brussels last week? Having gone there with a feeling of apprehension, I detected a sense of deep alarm. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the No. 2 British official there said that the CAP was not working? In view of the contribution that this country makes to the budget of the EEC, and in view of the inefficiency of this policy and its cost, the right hon. Gentleman should condemn it and seek to renegotiate it right away.

Mr. Godber: I do not accept that it is not working, and I am surprised that any official should have said this. It is working, and working in a way which, when we entered, we accepted that it would work. The negotiations that we have had this year have helped us to point out to the Community—and to bring about in the Community—certain changes which I think are helpful. When the hon. Gentleman is next over there, I hope that he will look me up, particularly in the small hours of the morning, when we are sitting, so that we can discuss these matters.

Mr. Marten: While my right hon. Friend is considering whether to publish a Green Paper or a White Paper, will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those basic principles that he feels he has to keep in the common agricultural policy, because this is a little obscure to some of us?

Mr. Godber: I suggest that these matters were fully dealt with during the debates on accession. There is nothing that I can add to these matters that would be served by publication in this form. There were the conditions which were clearly stated when we negotiated, which have been fully debated here many times, and there is no point, at this stage, in my adding to what has been said.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to the site of the National Exhibition Centre.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Earlier this year I attended the ceremony to mark the opening of work on the centre but I have no plans at present for a further visit.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the fact that the work on the site is going according to schedule, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the success of this centre is of such vital concern to the nation that it is essential that we have adequate ancillaries, such as air, road and rail links, and hotel accommodation, before the opening in January 1976? Will he give a personal undertaking to see that there is adequate co-ordination as necessary between Government Departments to achieve this aim?

The Prime Minister: This is widely recognised throughout the Midlands, as well as a large part of the rest of the country, to be a most important project, which has had the support of all parties concerned. The two central Government Departments mainly concerned—the DTI and the DoE—are in close contact about the co-ordination for which my hon. Friend has asked. The development will be considerable, of course. There will be a 400-room hotel, a 250-room motel, a conference centre, and parking for 15,000 cars. The infrastructure which will be required for this, including, I understand, improved airport facilities, will be co-ordinated by the Departments concerned because of the importance that we attach to it.

Mr. Kaufman: When the National Exhibition Centre is completed, will the Prime Minister arrange to have on display there the basket of groceries that was on display at Conservative Central Office in June 1970, together with the prices they cost then and the prices they cost now?

The Prime Minister: What I do know is that another Conservative Government will be able to see this project through to its fruition.

CONSERVATIVE WOMEN'S CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on 23rd May on the exertion of Great Britain's influence abroad.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on company law to the Conservative Women's Conference on 23rd May.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech which he made to the Conservative Women's Conference in London on 23rd May 1973 on aspects of capitalism.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government aims, at Central Hall, Westminster, on 23rd May.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 24th May, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the rather grandiose generalities about Britain's influence in the world, with which he regaled the Conservative ladies, with his inability to dent President Pompidou's policy across the Channel on nuclear tests?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Member's own basis, nation States of the Community are still responsible for their own defence and foreign policy.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that despite the much-regretted but nevertheless-to-be-enforced withdrawal of Mr. Hugh Scanlon from the TUC team negotiating over phase 3, these negotiations will continue to what we hope will be a successful conclusion? Will he further reassure the House that the Government will continue to represent the interests of the nation as a whole, but particularly of those groups that are not represented by trade unions and are therefore liable to suffer more than most in conditions of excessive inflation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir—that is the purpose of the talks that the Government have now resumed with the TUC and the CBI. I regret the absence of Mr. Scanlon from these talks. Mr. Scanlon has said that he believes that the decision was wrong but that he must be bound by it. The General Secretary of the TUC has already spoken of continuing talks with the Government, but the makeup of the delegation of the TUC is entirely a matter for the TUC.

Mr. Davis: In his speech the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that the excesses and abuses of the capitalist system, to which he referred, were just isolated events. Is he not aware that tax mitigation schemes now represent a very large growth industry in Britain and that tax havens are used on a widespread basis? What effective action will the right hon. Gentleman take, instead of his pathetic bleatings, to deal with these very real abuses as a matter of great urgency?

The Prime Minister: Where there is abuse of the existing law the Government have already taken action to set up an inquiry into the case. This is quite appropriate under the Companies Act. As I have told the House, the reform of companies legislation, which is normally carried through every 10 years, will be carried through by the present Government in the next Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given the House information about the attention that he has given to specific examples of tax avoidance and evasion that have been brought to his notice.

Mr. Adley: In his speech my right hon. Friend referred to the Labour Party's programme. In view of the apparent concern shown by the Labour Party about food prices, will he explain to the nation how the nationalisation of 25 major companies in Britain, at an unexplained expense to the taxpayer, will reduce food prices?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or one of his right hon. Friends to deal with.

Mr. Healey: In view of the bumbling incompetence shown by the firm, Slater Walker, in handling its own affairs over recent weeks, does the Prime Minister feel that this qualifies the firm to have


taken over 100 companies over the last 18 months without any mandate from the British people, or is this another aspect of the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism to which the right hon. Gentleman now regularly refers?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is making accusations that a particular firm has broken the law, he ought to inform the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he is not making an accusation of breaking the law, it is a matter for the shareholders of the firm to take their own decision.

AUSTRALIA

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Australia.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Ought not the Prime Minister to have plans to do so and to indicate to the President of France that he is not his lapdog but is prepared to talk to the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand and pledge our full support for their opposition to the plans of the President of France to poison the atmosphere around their coasts, saying quite clearly that we stand by the Australians and New Zealanders and are opposed to the French President's policy?

The Prime Minister: During the last few weeks, I have had detailed discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia and the Deputy Prime Minister in London. What is more, both Governments have made their representations direct to President Pompidou in Paris.

Mr. Loughlin: Is it not possible for the Prime Minister to do something more? Does he not accept that our kith and kin in Australia and New Zealand—I am using terms acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman—are in serious danger as a consequence of the nuclear explosion proposed by France? Would not it be better if we in the House, through the Prime Minister, expressed in no uncertain terms our absolute abhorrence of the actions of the French Government?

The Prime Minister: I have told the House constantly that the French Government are well aware of the views of

the present British Government, as they were aware of the views of our predecessors.

Mr. William Price: If the Prime Minister changes his mind and goes to Australia, will he stop off in Rugby on the way and explain to the housewives in my constituency why prices have risen by 35 per cent. since he was elected?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had any information about the movement of world prices, he would be able to do that for himself.

REGIONAL DEVOLUTION (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment with regard to regional devolution.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends have co-operated closely in implementing the Government's policy that, within the framework of a united country, as much decision-making as possible should be devolved.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister accept that we are not content, particularly in Scotland, with his repeated bleatings about legislative devolution? Will he accept that his statements of his Government's policy would be, much more meaningful if they made a clear statement regarding the distribution of civil servants, in terms of offices, and the prevention of the expansion of the Maplin complex? If the right hon. Gentleman is really concerned about meaningful devolution, this is the type of governmental policy that ought to be followed.

The Prime Minister: There is a complex of questions in what the hon. Gentleman has asked. First, legislative devolution is a matter that is being considered by the Commission on the Constitution. Its report is due in the fairly near future. We ought to await that report and see the recommendations in this respect.
Regarding administrative devolution, the previous Conservative Government carried this a long way, and we have carried still further in Scotland and Wales. Maplin is a matter that should be considered by the United Kingdom Government in the context of regional policy for the United Kingdom as a whole. It would not be affected by legislative devolution to Scotland or Wales.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister regard the dispersal of civil servants a a legitimate instrument in regional policy? If so, does he regard the Hardman Report as coming anywhere near meeting that requirement?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is made clear in the Hardman Report that one of the essential matters to be considered is the regional situation in the country. I have constantly emphasised that I regard it has an essential element of regional policy. On the specific recommendations of the Hardman Report, the Government will listen to all the views expressed from different parts of the country, as I have already told the House, by staff associations and others concerned. Having heard them, we shall then be able to come to a conclusion on the report as a whole.

SECURITY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received recently concerning security within Government Departments.

The Prime Minister: I have received communications from hon. Members and from members of the public about the matters referred to in my statement to the House on 24th May. These matters have now been referred to the Security Commission.

Mr. Hamilton: Is any consideration being given to the form in which Ministers might be vetted before appointment? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that when the Franks Committee report is debated—as I hope it will be next week or some time soon—the Government will not make their proposals immediately on concluding the debate but will give serious consideration to the views of the House on all the matters

pertaining to Franks, and to the attitude of the Press and outside bodies concerned to the Franks Report?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, I think that all recent Governments have given consideration to the point that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I should have thought that in present circumstances we had better await the report of the Security Commission and see whether it has any recommendations to make in this regard.
Concerning the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the purpose of the House debating the Franks Report is to enable the Government to hear the views of the House before reaching final conclusions. My right hon. Friend will be able to give the House some preliminary views about certain aspects of the report and, at the same time, to explain some of the problems that the Government now see as the result of studying the report. The House will be able to express its views upon it.

Mr. Lipton: Now that nearly a year has elapsed since the Security Commission was asked to investigate the cases of Bingham and Hinchcliffe, when will the publishable part of its report be made public?

The Prime Minister: It will be published very shortly indeed. All the normal procedures have been carried through, both in consultations with the security services, after the report was written, and with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I know the time that this has taken, but the hon. Gentleman will see from the report that certain judicial activities had to be carried on in the course of this, and although the Committee can start its proceedings under the rules that were changed by the right hon. Gentleman before a court case is finished, nevertheless, concerning certain witnesses and principals, it has to await the conclusion of those proceedings before it can finally complete them. That is what happened in this case.

TUC AND CBI (TALKS)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meetings with the TUC and CBI


regarding phase 3 of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) will not have heard because his hon. Friend was not here to ask it.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply is in the true tradition of our Prime Minister, and is somewhat obscure. Would it not be a good idea for him and his Government to lay before the CBI and the TUC clear and specific proposals on how much the Government are prepared to concede on things like rents, old-age pensions, and on the Industrial Relations Act, so that the country may know just how the negotiations are to be conducted and how much is available, especially to the TUC?

The Prime Minister: At our last meeting with the TUC it was agreed that there were five particular areas affecting the economy, the social services, and industrial relations, which would be subjects of discussion between the TUC and the Government. The TUC then asked that there should be a break before the next meeting, during which, the subjects having been settled, it would prepare itself to come back to the Government and express its views about these items. That seemed to both sides the right way of going about it and that is what is now happening.

Mr. Redmond: When my right hon. Friend last met the TUC and the CBI was there any discussion on the employment figures, with particular reference to the shortage of labour that has now appeared in many industries?

The Prime Minister: The TUC naturally welcomed the reduction in the unemployment figures, which has again been emphasised today. It also accepted, at the instigation of the Government, that one of the subjects that we should study and discuss together was the best use of the national resources, particularly in those areas where shortages of particular skills are becoming evident.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Recalling that last autumn and again earlier this year the Government refused even to contemplate

the use of food subsidies, on the ground that they felt that they would inevitably mean rationing—however wrong that view might be—do they now accept our view that food subsidies are necessary in this situation—a view shared by the TUC? Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that food subsidies would mean rationing, or is he now prepared to consider them with an open mind?

The Prime Minister: Far from our having excluded food subsidies, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced certain specific food subsidies which the Government used. In particular, we used them on sugar and potatoes and one or two other items. The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between those items where food subsidies can be used, where there is a surplus and in order to bring prices down still further for the housewife, and those items of which there is a world shortage and where prices would be pushed up still further by the system the right hon. Gentleman wants to introduce. The TUC recognises this.

Mr. Wilson: As the Prime Minister knows, the TUC is still pressing for food subsidies on those items where prices have risen most. I know that he would not wish to mislead the House about this. We are all capable of distinguishing between one food and another. The distinction made by most people is that those foodstuffs which have risen most in price are the ones that the Government have done nothing about. Does the right hon. Gentleman still argue, in those cases, that it would mean rationing, and is he prepared to think again and introduce food subsidies, or is he not?

The Prime Minister: The foods whose prices have risen most are those which are in shortest supply in the world—that is, cereals and meat. As for the TUC talks, the situation is exactly the same as it was last summer and autumn; these matters can be fully discussed, as they have been already.

Mr. Wilson: The Prime Minister must answer the question. He always tells us that matters can be fully discussed—like the political things he ruled out for action last year, such as housing. Has he now ruled out anything for action?


Is he to deal with housing and food prices, or is he now saying that anything that is subject to world prices is not a matter on which he can introduce subsidies? Is he saying that, or not?

The Prime Minister: What I am saying is that we are fully prepared to discuss these things and to listen. The Government are just as entitled to express their view on these matters as are the TUC and the CBI That is accepted by both sides. A year ago these matters were not excluded. Housing and rents were not excluded, and they were all discussed.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point about Question No. 5 to the Prime Minister? My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) was unable to be here to ask that Question for reasons which the Prime Minister may not be aware of. Is it proper for the Prime Minister, in replying to Question No. 10, to refer to the answer to Question No. 5, which we were not given because of the absence of my hon. Friend? [Interruption.] May I finish my point, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, because it is not a point of order.

Mr. William Price: It should be.

Mr. Speaker: If the House would impose upon the Chair the burden of censuring answers by Ministers, the Chair would, of course, do its best, but at the moment that is not the rule.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is no precedent for this. If a Question is not put it is the duty of the Minister if it is subsequently put in a different or similar form on a later Question to give the answer which was originally sought.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for order. The content of an answer is entirely a matter for the Minister who made it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25TH JUNE—Until seven o'clock, consideration of Private Members' Motions. Afterwards, a debate on Motions on a New Parliamentary Building.
Motion on the Medicines (Feeding Stuffs Additives) Order.
TUESDAY 26TH JUNE—Supply (22nd allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on United Kingdom Regional Policy And The Common Market, and afterwards on The Position Of Immigrants Following The House Of Lords' Decision. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
The House will be asked to agree that consideration of the Opposed Private Business named by the Chairman of Ways and Means for seven o'clock should be postponed until ten o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 27TH JUNE—A debate on Foreign Affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the Butter Subsidy Regulations.
THURSDAY 28TH JUNE—Supply (23rd allotted day). Conclusion of the debate on Foreign Affairs, when the appropriate Vote will be before the House.
Remaining stages of the International Cocoa Agreement Bill.
FRIDAY 29TH JUNE—A debate on a motion to take note of the Report of the Franks Committee on the Official Secrets Act 1911 (Command No. 5104).
MONDAY 2ND JULY—Supply (24th allotted day). Debate on a topic to be announced.

Mr. Wilson: We welcome that after so many months the Franks Report is to be debated in the House, even though, from what the Prime Minister said, it will be without any clear lead from the Government about their reaction to it. [Interruption.] It could have been debated at any time and the views of the House could have been made known, but now nine months have passed with no Government action. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects us to be


able to debate the Younger Report and also when he expects to publish the reports of the Computer Society and the Royal Statistical Society on certain privacy aspects of the census? They have been held up for some eight or nine months. When can we expect them?
I turn to the Poulson disclosures. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that this unfortunate matter came up a year ago and I said that the country would not be satisfied without a full and open inquiry into the Poulson disclosures. Is he aware that in the course of the last two or three days there have been issued by Scotland Yard most contradictory statements? There has been a series of apparently authoritative but not always comprehensible Written Answers by the Attorney-General. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement in the House about the exact problems of delay—if there is a delay—and about how long it will be before these matters are brought to justice? Clearly, the House felt that it would not be possible to have a tribunal of inquiry until any cases involving prosecution had been proceeded with, but may we have some idea of how long that will take?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said yesterday that in a few days the police would submit to the Director of Public Prosecutions a report on one part of their investigations, and a second report is expected within a month. But I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. and learned Friend and ask him whether there is any further information he can give to the House at the earliest possible moment.
I turn next to the right hon. Gentleman's question about Younger and the report of the Computer Society. I very much hope that we shall be able to fit in a debate towards the middle of next month and that all the necessary information will be available to the House before that debate.
It has been the request of the House that the Government should have an open mind for the Franks debate, which is to be held tomorrow week, rather along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) this afternoon.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: When will the House be acquainted with the Government's thinking on company law legislation? Can my right hon. Friend say what form it will take, whether it will be consultative, and whether it will take into account the implications of our treaty obligations in respect of the approximation of laws within the European Economic Community?

Mr. Prior: There will be a White Paper on certain Government proposals and there is a possibility of a Green Paper a little later on some other proposals, chiefly those which bear on the Common Market implications.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable difficulty has been experienced by the majority of members of the Welsh Grand Committee in getting that Committee to debate subjects that are reasonably required by about four-fifths of its members? In view of that, will the right lion. Gentleman consider setting up a Standing Committee for Welsh affairs, thus enabling Ministers to be questioned in depth, and avoiding the sonorous reading of the Civil Service typescripts which pass for ministerial speeches so often in the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Prior: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said, but I cannot give him an undertaking for next week.

Mr. Thorpe: As there appears to be agreement on both sides of the House that investigations into the affairs of Mr. Poulson and his associated companies should be detailed, swift and thorough, and as there is growing public disquiet on all three counts, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 368, in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends? If we cannot be given an indication of when time will be allowed for a debate, may we at least expect a statement next week from the responsible Minister on the Government's intentions in the matter?

[That this House, dismayed at the continuing allegations and public unease concerning the involvement of John T. Poulson and his associated companies in the local and national politics and administration of this country; recognising that bankruptcy proceedings are primarily concerned with recovery of


debts for the creditors, that police inquiries will inevitably be limited in scope and protracted, and that the generally high integrity of public life may now be threatened by practices which may not even infringe the existing law; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up a Tribunal of Inquiry to investigate urgently the financial connections between local and public authorities and John T. Poulson and his associated companies, and to make recommendations as to whether the public interest in planning decisions and the award of public contracts needs extra safeguards against improper influences.]

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister considers it desirable that nothing should be done or said which might impede proper consideration of proceedings and a fair hearing for anyone who might be involved. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a tribunal of inquiry, which would as a practical matter need to be given specific terms of reference, is not necessarily the best way of obtaining general recommendations about the integrity of public life. However, no action which the Director of Public Prosecutions took would preclude any later form of inquiry should that be desirable. That was exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last year when he made the announcement to the House.

Mr. Biffen: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be publishing a Green Paper on the subject of two-tier boards and the related topic of worker participation, and that it will be available to the House so that it may be debated here before the Council of Ministers next addresses itself to the draft Fifth Directive?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give a specific undertaking about the timing of the Green Paper. I can confirm that in due course a Green Paper or a consultative document on the question asked by my hon. Friend will be published.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the motion to take at ten o'clock on Tuesday the business set down for seven o'clock by the Chairman of Ways and Means be a debatable motion?

Mr. Prior: I presume that strictly it would be debatable, but I very much hope

that, in view of the business before the House, the House will proceed quickly with any debate so that we can get on to other business.

Mr. Fowler: Two reports in the past month, one from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the other from the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, have drawn attention to the fact that violent crime in this country is rising. Is not that a matter of grave public concern? Can we expect to have a debate upon crime?

Mr. Prior: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said. I am still hopeful that it will be possible to arrange a debate before the Summer Recess, but we have a great deal of work to get through, and I should not like to give a definite undertaking as early as this.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of an impressive dossier of evidence of brutality against some wives by their husbands, including pregnant wives, so that the children are born deformed or disabled, and further evidence of police and social service authorities' indifference, not wanting to intervene in what they euphemistically call family relations? Is there any prospect of a debate on the subject next week?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I agree that it is an important matter, but I cannot foresee time for a debate in Government time. It might be a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate or a debate on the Adjournment motion at the end of the session.

Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is eight or nine weeks since he first suggested that we should debate the raising of the age for obtaining driving licences from 17 to 18? As he found time a couple of weeks ago to debate a motion to do with the European Parliament and our delegates receiving better facilities, such as cars, expenses and so on, can he not now find time to debate the driving licence question?
Secondly, can he remind himself that a mass of draft European legislation is going through the pipeline and that none of it has been given time for debate in this Parliament? We must face up to the problem and get round to dealing with it.

Mr. Prior: The House is awaiting a second report from the Select Committee


which has been set up to examine the latter question.
I should have thought that my hon. Friend would welcome the fact that the driving licence question has gone rather cold for the moment. I have given him an undertaking that it would be debated before it became very live again.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am sorry that the Leader of the House thinks it necessary for me to keep chivvying him month after month about the Robens Report. There is a strong feeling in many parts of the House that we have been treated most shabbily by the Government on the issue. It is nearly 12 months since the report was published, and the House has not had an adequate opportunity to debate either the report or the inadequate statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment a few weeks ago. Shall we have a chance to debate it before the Recess or before the Government submit legislation without otherwise having heard the word of the House?

Mr. Prior: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman takes that point of view, because I thought that the recent debate, albeit on a Private Member's motion, gave an opportunity for the Government and hon. Members on both sides to state their views. J am short of time at present, but I shall reconsider what the hon. Gentleman said.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend kindly bear in mind that the shipbuilders and shipping people will want a debate on the Booz-Allen Report, and that the last thing they want is for the Government to come to their decision when the House is in Recess? Whatever the Government have in view relating to the report, we think it most important that we should know, so that we can say what we want to say on behalf of the shipbuilders and shipping people.

Mr. Prior: I take note of what my hon. Friend said. However, we have not had the report all that long. I think that it would be a good idea for the report to be properly discussed and for the views of the shipbuilding industry to be made known before we have a debate in the House.

Mr. Foot: In view of the extraordinary reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave

to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), will he recognise that he has no excuse whatsoever for not offering a debate on these matters, and that he cannot use as an excuse the failure of the committee to issue a final report? Will he recognise that it is precisely for that reason that the committee issued an interim report which encouraged, invited and urged the Government to provide facilities for exactly such debates as those for which the hon. Member for Banbury asked? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an absolute undertaking that the Government will provide time for a debate on this matter?
Further, will he take into account that time is running out? The Opposition have provided an opportunity in their own time to discuss the regional issues which are involved although we think that the Government should have provided that time. The Opposition consider that it is the Government's responsibility to provide time to discuss the Government's attitude to the trade negotiations which are to take place between the EEC and other countries.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it should be an absolute Government responsibility to provide time before the end of July for a full debate on the proposals for economic and monetary union in Europe? The Government have a special responsibility. The Prime Minister was suggesting last week that the House might already have had the opportunity of deciding the matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is not the case and that it is his responsibility to provide the time for all these matters to be discussed following the recommendations of the Select Committee, which has already reported in an interim sense?

Mr. Prior: The House will have an opportunity during the two-day debate on foreign affairs this coming week to debate sonic of the issues which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Although the negotiations between GATT and the Community are essentially trade issues, they clearly have a significance which goes well beyond trade and they need to be considered in a larger economic and political context. Therefore, I should imagine that they would be relevant to the two-day foreign affairs debate.
In addition, we shall have a half-day debate on the EEC's regional policy next week. I should have thought that many of the important issues were being discussed in the House. I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) an undertaking that in due course, and at a convenient time, we shall have a debate about the raising of the age for the issue of motor licences. I do not believe that there is any pressing need to have that debate at the moment.

Mr. Redmond: I must press my right hon. Friend once again about metrication. Does he not feel that the time has come for the Government to seek parliamentary approval of the White Paper which was published in February 1972? Does he agree that that is rather a long time to have to wait? Incidentally, will he take note that I would support the White Paper?

Mr. Prior: I find that a great encouragement to holding a debate. I must tell the House that I have been having consultations with my right hon. Friend since the matter was raised. I am hopeful that before long a statement will be made to the House.

Mr. Millan: When will the House be able to debate the Hardman Report? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the wholly inadequate nature of the recommendations it would be intolerable if the report were not debated before the Government took any decisions on it?

Mr. Prior: I accept that there must be a debate on the Hardman Report. On the whole we felt that it was a wiser course for hon. Members and for outside interests, including staff associations, to be able to make their views known before the House considered the report as a whole. That remains the Government's position. I know that Scottish Opposition hon. Members have written to me about the report. I shall bear in mind what they have said.

Mr. Heffer: As the Industrial Relations Act is now under active discussion in secret and non-secret meetings, will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for a debate in the House on the future of the Industrial Relations Act? If that is done the House can discuss any amend-

ments which might be coming forward rather than have amendments announced to the country during the Summer Recess.

Mr. Prior: I can see no opportunity over the next few weeks for a debate on that matter.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make an early statement on a voluntary register of hon. Members' interests following the all-party discussions which have taken place? Will such a discussion be debatable? Many hon. Members feel that there is great urgency about the matter.

Mr. Prior: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one fact. All-party discussions have not yet taken place. I think that each party has been having discussions, but we have not yet had an all-party discussion. That, I hope, will be arranged in the near future. I recognise that this is an important matter. I am not in a position to say whether there will be time for a debate.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I asked him for an all-party discussion a few weeks ago and that he asked me to defer the matter for a short while?

Mr. Prior: I confirm that.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House seen the excellent report which was published on Tuesday by the Department of Health and Social Security about research into deafness? As that report stems from the action of this House in passing Section 24 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970 and as the chief medical officer of health has pointed out that this area of disability is one of the most unknown and one of the least taken care of by the community, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to discuss the report?

Mr. Prior: It would be difficult for me to find Government time. However, there will be a number of opportunities not only for Adjournment debates but during the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill to discuss the matter during the next few weeks. If hon. Members can initiate such a debate the Government, of course, will take part in it. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any further undertaking.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Written Answer which I have just received which states that in the 12 months to the end of April council house starts in England and Wales were 32 per cent. fewer than in the previous 12 months? In view of that scandalous admission and the obvious implications for the less-well-off members of the community, and the publication of the Government's White Paper a fortnight ago, will the Government provide some of their own time to discuss this vital matter?

Mr. Prior: I should have thought, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that this might well be a subject chosen for debate by the Opposition.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend stay in his place when his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Civil Service makes a statement on parliamentary papers? The business for next week is liable to lose something of its savour if we cannot read about it afterwards.

Mr. Prior: I recognise the problems which the House must face as a result of the current industrial dispute. As my hon. Friend will be telling the House, we hope very much that the arrangements which we are making will be suitable and will enable the House not only to have the papers which it requires but if necessary to read about the business afterwards.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a vast degree of interest in the Franks Report inside and outside the House? Does he accept that it is an insult to those people that we are to have a debate on the report on a Friday? Will he reconsider the organisation of the business next week so that we can debate the Franks Report in the middle of the week and take the first day of the foreign affairs debate on Wednesday and the second day on Friday?

Mr. Prior: No, I do not think that that would be for the convenience of the House. I must make it abundantly plain that Fridays are parliamentary days of just as great importance as any other day. If we move away from that concept we shall pack up Fridays altogether, That would be a great mistake.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance—I revert to his answer to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)—that when deafness is debated we may at the same time seek to debate the Quirk Report and the kindred matters affecting speech therapy which are of a parcel and which could be conveniently debated together? Does he agree that these matters are already too long outstanding?

Mr. Prior: I recognise that it would be convenient to debate the Quirk report and deafness at the same time, but I am in difficulty about Government business. I recognise the importance of the matter and I would like to consider it further.

Mr. Stallard: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in today's Evening Standard about safety checks which have been ordered on 19 schools throughout Britain? Does he recognise that this is a direct result of the collapse of a school in my constituency last week and that there have been widespread demands for a public inquiry into the causes? There is growing concern, certainly throughout London, about this type of building. I understand that at least a dozen other buildings of similar structure to that which collapsed are still in operation. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will change her mind and make a statement to the House on this very serious problem?

Mr. Prior: I will speak to my right hon. Friend about it and see whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: Since millions of people will be disappointed, should we not have had a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment responsible for sport on his talks with representatives of the lawn tennis players and of the All-England Club? As chairman of the Opposition's sports group, I inform the right hon. Gentleman that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are far from persuaded that the tennis authorities should give in to some extremely well-rewarded players, and I remind him that this opinion is expressed by some of us who have fought hard and long for better conditions for other sportsmen.

Mr. Prior: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for


the Environment saw representatives of both sides last night, but of course there is no intention by the Government to interfere in the day-to-day running of any sport. I agree that if the tournament does not take place with its full complement there will be widespread disappointment, and I still hope very much that good sense will prevail.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The House will be disappointed to learn that the dispute concerning the linotype operators at the Parliamentary Press has not been resolved. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has not been able to persuade the national officers of the National Graphical Association or the local chapel to agree to an offer that comes within the limits of the Government's policy for phase 2. Negotiations are continuing to seek a solution as quickly as possible.
I regret very much the inconvenience that this has imposed upon hon. Members, and, in particular, the fact that HANSARD in its normal form has not been produced during the last 10 days and today's Order Paper and Votes and Proceedings were also affected. Photostat copies of the HANSARD reporters' transcript are available for reference in the Library and a number of copies are placed in the Whips' offices. However, the Government are taking steps to expand the emergency arrangements for making available papers essential for Parliament to function. I regret that these papers will not always be available in the form or as early as hon. Members are accustomed to.
I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the staff of the Vote Office and the House for their help and co-operation during this time.

Mr. Sheldon: I associate the Opposition with the thanks to the staff. Two questions arise from the new forms of publication to which the hon. Gentleman referred. First, what is to be their form? Are they to be lithographed or duplicated? How early can they be provided?
Amongst other things, the expansion of the number of Select Committees has

meant that at crucial times of the business of the House a larger number of right hon. and hon. Members are away from the Chamber. They rely to an increasing extent on their reading in order to catch up with what they have missed. This is an important point.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asked about the nature of the emergency arrangements. We are mainly concerned with the provision of essential papers for the House. These are the Order Paper and the Votes and Proceedings in a typed form by some method of duplication. I will try to see that these are available as early as possible, I hope by about 10 o'clock each morning. But HANSARD is too large an undertaking to deal with by this means. One of the basic problems affecting the Parliamentary Press is that the demands of the House for more papers increase each year. Since 1964 the page content of parliamentary papers has more than doubled.

Sir Robin Turton: There has been a surprising complacency by two successive Governments in dealing with these interruptions of parliamentary business. Is my hon. Friend aware that at the present time Select Committees can get no printed evidence of the witnesses before them and that they can have no reports printed? This is a very serious dislocation of parliamentary business, which the Government should deal with. It is their responsibility to find an adequate solution, which they are not doing at the present time.

Mr. Baker: I understand the impatience of my right hon. Friend and of other right hon. and hon. Members. The printing of HANSARD for both the House and the Standing Committees is a major undertaking which it would be exceedingly difficult to do under the aegis of the House. What I hope is possible, and to achieve in the next few days, is the provision of the urgent and essential papers for Parliament under the aegis of the House.

Mr. Grimond: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that HANSARD is one of the most urgent and important papers? Is he aware—no doubt he is—that a great deal of legislation is going through which is of interest not only to right hon. and hon. Members but to many


individuals, public bodies and local authorities outside who at the moment have no idea what is happening and what representations they may make? Could not the hon. Gentleman arrange, in addition to the rough transcripts available in the Library, for one master copy of the proceedings in the form of HANSARD to be placed in the Library so that those hon. Members who wish to send a part of the transcript to, for example, their local authorities could have that part photostatted?

Mr. Baker: I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion because I am very conscious of the inconvenience not only to the House but to other people who read its proceedings. It would mean that each day the reporters' transcripts would have to be typed up rather than set, because it is the linotype operators and the composing unions which are in dispute. I will see whether something cannot he done to improve the arrangements.

Mr. Biffen: As this is a pay dispute, can my hon. Friend indicate what the average weekly earnings are of the people affected by the dispute, how much they are claiming in addition to their current rates of earnings, and how their present level of earnings compares with workers similarly employed within the metropolis?

Mr. Baker: By no stretch of the imagination can this group of skilled workers be called "low-paid". Their normal earnings are as high as £90 a week for night work and £70 a week for day work. One of the major purposes of phase 2 of our policy is to help the low-paid, and this can only be achieved if higher-paid workers are prepared to accept the limits laid down by the policy. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that that is fair.

Mr. Edward Short: As this dispute arises from the Government's grossly unfair phase 2, what are the Government doing to try to get a settlement? The hon. Gentleman will recollect that during a previous dispute, in 1969, the Labour Government agreed with the then Conservative Opposition on emergency arrangements. May I take it that the Government will discuss the emergency arrangements with the Opposition and,

in particular, agree on what are essential parliamentary papers?

Mr. Baker: I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance that what he suggests in the latter part of his question will be done. The emergency arrangements were agreed in 1969 during the troubles then, and the usual channels will be aware of what those arrangements are. I will ensure that the Opposition's views are taken into account as to what are considered to be essential papers.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what the Government are doing. We are in continuous negotiation with the union. There is a meeting of the national officers of the NGA today to consider our latest position.

Mr. Crouch: This is something much more than just inconvenience to Members of this House and of the other place. It is not only interfering with the functions of Parliament but could lead to an interference with the judgment of Parliament. Members of another place are anxious to see what has been going on in this House during the last 10 days. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the photostat copies he is making available will also be available to the other place?

Mr. Baker: Yes, indeed. The Parliamentary Press has to print all the papers for the other place, and I will make quite sure that such copies are available to Members of the other place.

Mr. Heffer: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much extra cost the interim measures will involve and how this would match up with settling the dispute?

Mr. Baker: That is really impossible for me to estimate at this stage. The point is that the actual demand by the men in this case is beyond phase 2, and, as the Government have made clear, because of the overall national consideration, and the essential fairness of that, it would be quite wrong to consider a claim over the limits of phase 2.

Mr. Marten: As a by-product of the lack of HANSARD, could my hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind his colleagues on the Front Bench that when answering Parliamentary Questions they should not, as the Minister of Agriculture


did this afternoon, refer to previous answers that should have been printed in HANSARD but are not available?

Mr. Baker: The photostat transcript is available, but I will bear that point in mind.

BILL PRESENTED

EMPLOYEES' CHARTER

Mr Jeremy Thorpe presented a Bill to ensure reasonable conditions and rights for all workers; to provide for reasonable communication of information, ability of workers to express views and review performance and prospects, annual accounts to state labour turnover and reasons, reasonable consultation on mergers or takeovers, elimination of unreasonable distinctions between white and blue collar workers, minimum holidays and holiday pay rates, leaves of absence for family reasons and childbirth, better earnings for normal working hours and discouragement of unnecessary overtime, fair rewards for suggestions and inventions, and prevention of discrimination in pensions on termination of employment; and for purposes generally connected therewith; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Northern Ireland (S.I., 1973, No. 890) not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY ELECTION

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Northern Ireland Assembly (Election) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 890), dated 9th May 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be anulled.
I should like to make it clear straight away that we shall not be pressing this to a Division.
We are still debating the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill and will be returning to it later on. The Assembly itself—to use a phrase well known in Northern Ireland—was lifted out of the Bill and has been dealt with earlier. We asked for that because in our view it was urgent to get the necessary speed and to concentrate the minds of people politically in Northern Ireland. These elections, for the running of which this order gives the details, are important, and there are a number of points that I should like to raise.
I want to make it clear first of all that we understand why the order came in this form. Indeed, if the Government had not used the negative procedure it would have been impossible to get the order out in time. That is why we have prayed against it, and I think it is the only one we have prayed against in the period of direct rule.
Although it is late now to put these points, with the elections coming next week, I presume the Government will be putting their minds to future elections, and I shall put my mind to that later.
The first point I put to the Minister is that Rule 15 of Schedule 2 provides that if a candidate dies the election goes ahead. This was not the case in the elections to the district councils last month, and indeed, as I recall, a candidate did die in the Ards electoral area, and I think the election for that area is to be held today. I should be grateful, therefore, if we could have some explanation of the reasoning behind this change. I concede that the scale of operations is different. In the local elections there were 96 electoral areas and 526 seats involved: this time there


are 12 electoral areas, the Westminster constituencies, and a far greater proportion of the total seats would be involved. However, I find this provision disturbing, especially in Northern Ireland, where death by assassination, if I may put it that way, is a much more real possibility. I should like to know the Government's thinking on this.
Rule 22 of Schedule 2 concerns provision for postal voting. I can see that it might have been administratively necessary to vote by post in the border poll or the local elections in order to qualify for a postal vote in the Assembly elections, but I have had complaints that arrangements for postal voting in these elections have been confusing. The chief criticism appears to be that there was uncertainty about the length of time that one had to apply for such a vote. I suppose nothing can be done about this now, but I hope it will be noted. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many postal votes were, in fact, granted in respect of the border poll and the local elections, and I presume we can now have a figure for the Assembly elections since it is some weeks since the postal voting arrangements were made.
There has been some concern with regard to Article 6 of the order, which refers to the polling station scheme for the Assembly elections. It seems that, in spite of the short period of time between the local elections and the Assembly elections, the location of polling stations is to be different. It is felt that a number of people may not appreciate this and may turn up on 28th June at the polling station they used on 30th May. I can understand the change in one respect because I believe representations were made to the Chief Electoral Officer in the case of parts of Belfast where it was felt that members of one community would have to pass through a dangerous area in order to get to the polling station to vote; but is that the only reason why this has been done?
I understand also that there has been a reduction in the number of polling stations between the two elections. Certainly some members of the electorate will have much further to travel in order to vote. Can we be told the number of polling stations in the case of the local elections and the number in the case of the Assembly elections? Can it really

be the case that in County Tyrone people in some rural areas will now have to travel about 20 miles to cast their vote—considerably further, I am told, than in the local elections?
Already today at Question Time there has been a question on party political broadcasts. There is nothing in this order about party political broadcasts, and I am assuming that the position will be as normally in the rest of the United Kingdom for Westminster elections. I concede that when the Representation of the People Bill went through and became an Act there was some discussion about the method of party political broadcasts, and in the run up to an election it is proper that we should put our minds to this. What is the Government's thinking about this in the context of Northern Ireland?
I read in the paper today about the particular problems of one candidate and another. Frankly, I am not very much concerned with the particular issues. What I am concerned with is the order and whether, given the particular nature of Northern Ireland, something should have been done about this. It may be that on this and a number of other matters there should be discussion between the parties. We are all hoping that the elections next week will be the last elections for four years and that all will go well. But I hope that the Government will discuss these and other points, with the parties in Northern Ireland to get their views on this order and the very many aspects involved before the election after next.
These Assembly elections and this order under the Act that we passed must be seen in the context of the White Paper. We have consistently supported the White Paper approach knowing, of course, all the way along—and this is true of both sides of the House—that it is an approach which may not succeed. We want it to succeed. We want the elections with which this order is concerned to succeed. Last week, however, we were discussing—and this is what the order is all about—the pledge that has been given to Northern Ireland. In that context it was said that one part of the bargain was the pledge and the other was the right of Westminster to legislate for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. In terms


of the election I said that if the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland and their followers were prepared to make the order operate and to work the system which we have prepared that would be wonderful. If it failed through deliberate sabotage, which was the phrase used, the whole system would have failed. If that happens we shall all have to reconsider the situation. There will have to be a radical reappraisal. This election is important.
I can agree with The Times today which says that there is no soft option in Ulster. We certainly never thought that, and I do not think that the Government did. There is no short cut. In our options there does not figure another period of 18 months while we laboriously try to work out another scheme. The people of Northern Ireland will have the chance when the order comes into force next week to decide whether to work the scheme—

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: This is a most important part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. How is he to determine, if this experiment fails, that it has failed because of deliberate sabotage rather than inherent defects in the system? Will he say whether, when the Stormont Parliament was suspended a year ago, that was because of deliberate sabotage, inherent defects or the deliberate and ill-advised act of the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Rees: I would have said that it was because of inherent defects. The eventual finish was the action of the Government. This order is almost the concluding point. We in the United Kingdom have decided on a scheme. If there is deliberate sabotage of that scheme, the people of Northern Ireland cannot pick one part of it and repect another. The Times talks of a vacuum but next week there will be new leaders. The Assembly elections place an onus on them, not just on the Secretary of State.
The elections are seven days away. They are bound to be a turning-point in the history of Northern Ireland. Our hope is that whatever the views of those who are returned they will work together. That is the only way to prevent bloodshed; it is the only hope for sanity. We have supported the Government through-

out. It is still our view that this is the best approach for the people of Northern Ireland, and we seek to discuss this today only because we realise that it could not be discussed earlier. There are a number of technical points that could not be allowed to go through simply because this was a negative resolution order.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was kind enough to assure us at the beginning of his remarks—which ranged rather widely—that he would not press this debate to a Division. That will bring great relief, first, to the Government and, secondly, to the many of the candidates who have already paid their deposits. They must have been wondering what would happen if we rejected the order.
Article 6 deals with polling stations and is, in effect, an amendment to Section 65 of the principal Act. It appears to remove the democratic control and provision for consultation on the siting of polling stations. It also appears to remove the provision for holding a local inquiry about the scheme, which was provided for in the principal Act. There is no mention of a draft scheme as was provided for in Section 65(4)(b) of the principal Act. I submit that this is a matter of substance. It has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. There have been different sets of polling stations for the border poll and the local government elections and now there will be a different set for the Assembly elections. In the old days, the scheme was approved and remained in force until the submission of a fresh scheme, revised and approved for all elections.
This difference in the polling stations scheme makes for a certain amount of confusion and hampers political parties in planning their campaigns. Although we are not amending the principal Act, the practice provided for in this order may in future be regarded as a precedent. It has been the practice of returning officers in Westminister elections to accept the scheme approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs as a basis for the arrangements for elections held to return Members to this House. It will be seen that this House has a direct interest in the polling station scheme.
We would like to be assured that steps taken to facilitate the early holding of the Assembly elections in what are admittedly exceptional circumstances will not at some stage be used as a precedent particularly with regard to Westminster elections.
Article 33 in Part IV deals with election equipment. There is mention of "one marking instrument". I assume that this is an appliance for embossing the official mark on the ballot paper. It might be helpful to underline the fact that at certain polling stations the official mark was omitted from the papers and a certain number were lost. Mentioning this might keep presiding officers on their toes.
Difficulty was also encountered in the recent poll in obtaining supplies of pencils for electors to use to mark their papers. I was told that in one case after a great deal of delay these were obtained from the school storeroom. They were not the normal indelible type and this caused a certain amount of comment. This might seem a minor point but it is one of those niggling things which can cause a great deal of confusion.
Article 41 appears to have been lifted in its entirety from Section 40 of the principal Act. This section was designed for a normal system of voting whereby a voter places an X opposite the name of one candidate. The article has to be interpreted generously in view of the possible confusion experienced by elderly voters confronted by as many as 21 names, as occurred in my constituency of South Antrim.
I ask that presiding officers be advised to allow flexibility in the interpretation of article 41(3), which reads as follows:
A person accompanying a voter who by reason of total or partial blindness or other physical disability requires guidance or assistance may be admitted to the polling station for the purpose of giving such guidance or assistance.
Might it not be helpful to widen the scope of "other physical disability" to include elderly electors who are likely to be confused by the complicated voting system?
Article 56, which deals with the transfer of surplus votes, highlights the main defect of the single transferable vote

system. The article demonstrates that the vast majority of preference votes are never transferred because they are tied up in the quotas of the candidates who are declared elected. Unfortunately, that is not understood by electors in general. It certainly was not understood at the local government elections, and that defect is one reason why the system should be changed as soon as possible.
Article 62 reads as follows:
On the completion of the counting of votes the returning officer shall declare the result of the poll".
Does that mean that there will be no announcement until the count is completed, or will there be, as there was at the local government elections, piecemeal leaks spread over three or four days? I should like clarification on that.
The order perpetuates a new structure of chief electoral officer and a number of deputies. Is it intended to use the same electoral machinery for Westminster elections in Northern Ireland? Even with the appropriate modifications to the Representation of the People Act, I should be reluctant to set aside the experienced officers who formerly ran the elections in the Westminster constituencies for elections to this House. The electoral officers to whom the order refers in the past and in the border poll and local elections had to resort to a fair amount of stopgap improvisation. Candidates who were not furnished with the up-to-date register from which they could complete their nomination forms suffered hair-raising experiences. Certain help and advice on some occasions had to be given to returning officers in the early stages of the operations for the Assembly elections which I am sure would cause eyebrows to lift, but politicians and officials co-operated quite remarkably and the operations got off the ground.
I have no objection to the order in general. The elections for which it provides are proceeding, and we have no wish to delay or hamper the candidates who are engaged now in the electoral battle. But the House has a duty to provide them with the necessary machinery. We have the even more important duty of giving an assurance that the House will pay due attention to the views of those who are elected on 28th June.

4.34 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): It might be convenient for me to wind up the debate now and to try to answer some of the questions which have been raised.
For the convenience of the House I will say a word about the background to the debate. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) expressed a desire to explore some of the points that arise on the order. The order was made under the authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 which establishes a Northern Ireland Assembly and authorises one election to it. The election is to be based on Westminster parliamentary constituencies, on the Stormont franchise and on what we believe to be a suitable and right adaptation of the Stormont rules. The Act specifies those persons who are to be disqualified from membership of the Assembly.
The order was made on 9th May and came into operation on 15th May. It had to come into operation then to meet the timetable—which the House wished and strongly supported—of holding the local elections, as we did, on 30th May, and the Assembly elections in a week's time, on 28th June. The order provides the detailed rules for the conduct of the election and applies part of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 to the membership of the Assembly. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to direct by order when the first meeting of the Assembly shall be held and to fix the date of the poll.
As we know, the date of the poll is 28th June, and my right hon. Friend this afternoon in answer to a Question, told the House that he intends, as soon as the election has taken place, to have discussions about fixing a first meeting for the Assembly with the leaders of the parties elected to the Assembly.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South began by asking about by-elections. He is perfectly correct in saying that there is no provision either in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 or in this order for by-elections arising from the death of a candidate. As he will recall from our discussions in Committee on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill, Clause 28 provides for by-elections and makes provision for the machinery by

which there would be a by-election in the event of the death of a candidate. As soon as the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill receives the Royal Assent, Clause 28 will become operative and it will be possible to hold by-elections under that clause. Between 28th June and the date of the Royal Assent to the Bill there is no provision for by-elections. The reason for this and certain other features of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act and the order is that these measures had to be designed and brought forward to meet a tight time-scale.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned complaints about postal voting and said that there had been confusion. It is true that some people got it wrong, but we must look at this in perspective, and the figures tell a very good story. The vast majority of those who sought postal votes were able to have them and understood the machinery for getting them by the due dates. The figures also tell us that the process went extremely smoothly in the border poll and local elections. I think the House will agree that the operation of the system with its special procedures for extensive postal voting in the border poll and the local elections and for the major election less than one month after reflects immense credit on those who have made the arrangements and are organising the electoral procedures.
In the border poll 80,000 postal votes were used. In the local elections 139,000 postal votes were used. In the Assembly election 130,000 postal votes are being claimed. That is a little down on the local elections——

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The last figure obviously can be only for the number claimed. It would help for comparison to know how many were claimed in the two previous cases. I understood the hon. Gentleman to give the figures of those which were used.

Mr. Howell: Perhaps I misled the hon. Gentleman. Those three figures are comparable, in fact. The larger figures are as follows. In the case of the border poll, about 150,000 were applied for, of which 80,000 were used. In the local elections, the figure was 228,000, and the same figure applies in the Assembly election because in order to get this enormous organisational task through, the provision


was that only those who had postal votes in the local elections would have them in the Assembly election.
There have been complaints and disappointments, but all in all the figures show that the vast majority of people who have sought postal votes and who have sought to use them have been satisfied with the three voting arrangements. I think that it reflects credit on those who have organised these very complicated operations.
I come to the location of polling stations about which the hon. Member for Leeds, South had a word or two to say, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). They have been different in the three events. In the border poll there were 387 polling places. In the local elections there were 595 polling places. The number there was determined in part, as in every case, by security considerations, and in part by the need to relate polling places to wards. In the Assembly election the scheme is for 495 polling places—100 fewer—and the figure is largely accounted for by the fact that in the local elections it was necessary to locate polling places very much in the various wards. In the Assembly election that need no longer prevails. Therefore, after discussions with the security forces and after examining the experience gained in both the border poll and the local elections, it has been decided that 495 is a right and sensible figure providing the facilities that people need, still bearing in mind that we have this very special and extensive postal provision.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Has the scheme been published in full yet?

Mr. Howell: The scheme for the location of polling stations has been published.
The next matter raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South was that of party political broadcasts. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter for the broadcasting authorities. It does not arise on this order. It is a matter for arrangement between the broadcasting authorities and candidates.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am sure that that is right. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that in the case of West-

minster elections it is laid down in the Representation of the People Act. If it is a matter for the broadcasting authorities in Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman tell us in which legislation that provision appears?

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that it appears in any legislation. Perhaps I might check on that and let the hon. Gentleman know whether it is governed by legislation in the Northern Ireland situation. In any event, it does not arise on this order.
Those were the main points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. There remain other points about the siting of polling stations also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South. He asked about local consultations, the right to hold public inquiries and so on. He is quite correct that this is not provided for in the order. The reason is that which I gave for other features of the order, which is, again, the time factor.
The order came into force on 15th May, which gave six weeks for these matters to be settled. During the first two weeks of that period the electoral authorities were deeply involved in running the local elections. They were left with four weeks to sort out these other matters.
I know from experience that there have been discussions about the siting of certain polling stations, and the Chief Electoral Officer has been prepared to consider representations. But time did not allow us to consider putting in the order the necessary authority for full consultations on the siting of every polling station. Had it done so we should not have been able to hold the election on 28th June as we plan.

Mr. Molyneaux: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the pressure of time. However, I am concerned to see that we do not establish a precedent and that as soon as conditions permit we go back to the old system or as near to it as possible.

Mr. Howell: That is absolutely right. In the governing Act which applies only to this single Assembly that is the position. But there is provision in the Constitution Bill to extend the life of or to give further effect to the Northern


Ireland Assembly Act. That would give further life to the provisions in that Act, which include the opoprtunity for the consultations which my hon. Friend thinks are right.
My hon. Friend then turned to what he called the confusion about proportional representation and the single transferable vote system. He asked whether the provision for assisting disabled people with their voting could not be extended to others who were confused.
I am not sure that there is any confusion. Many people warned the Government that the system would defeat the intelligence and imagination of the people of Northern Ireland who would not understand how to operate the system. Our experience in the local elections was vastly different from that. The number of spoiled papers was small—1·7 per cent. of the total—and would have been smaller still taking into account the fact that a number of blank papers were put in by people who did not want personation and so on. The understanding of it was very wide. It was summed up for me in a sentence by an elderly lady who needed no explanation. She said, "You put 'em in the order you like 'em."Another simple guide might be, "The longer the list you care to put numbers against, the more effectively the system is working and the more effectively you are using your vote."

Mr. Stanley Orme: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people appear to understand it fully. When I was over there recently discussing proportional representation, my impression was that the consternation was amongst the political parties about the internal difficulties and stresses that it had brought.

Mr. Howell: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that for the voters this is an easily grasped system. I do not think that there have been many difficulties. Certainly that was our experience in the local elections, and we believe that that experience will be repeated in the coming election and that we shall find that there is little confusion.
I hope that I have answered most of the points raised in this short debate. We are only a week from polling day. Preparations for the election arc up to schedule and have gone according to plan. The local government elections provided officials running the electoral machine and the security forces with what might be called a trial run during which they acquitted themselves competently. The local government elections showed that the system of proportional representations was well understood and that an election in Northern Ireland can be held in a calm atmosphere despite all the doubt and gloom of the pessimists. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I sec no reason why there should not be a similar success and achievement on 28th June. We look forward to a high poll in another essential step towards the resumption of normal life in Northern Ireland, which is and must be our objective.
I hope that I have answered the points which the hon. Member for Leeds, South wished to bring out in praying that the order be annulled. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 20th June].

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

New Clause 4

MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER

The Chief Executive Member shall advise the Secretary of State at all times on the means necessary to maintain public order in Northern Ireland.—[Captain Orr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.51 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Committee are as tired of the sound of my voice as I am. However, I hope that it will be conceded, as we continue the Committee stage, that at least my hon. Friends and I have not sought unduly to delay the proceedings or, indeed, to be fractious in what we have sought to do. The opportunities for lengthy delay in this long and complicated Bill are very many indeed. For example, we could have spent half a day discussing the simple proposition that the Parliament of Northern Ireland should disappear. We could have had a long, historic discussion on that matter had we chosen to do so. Indeed, it would have been interesting to hear the views of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and some of my hon. Friends replying to him.
I freely acknowledge that the speed at which we have been able to move has also been due to the co-operation of my right hon. Friend, who has met us, at least partially, on a number of points.
That brings me immediately to the clause, upon which I hope he will be able to meet us. The clause seeks to ensure that, pending the transfer of responsibility for internal security, as soon

as an Executive can be formed—that presupposes the working of the Government's scheme—the Chief Executive shall have a considerable say in the maintenance of public order in Ulster. The effect would be that the Assembly could discuss both internal security and public order. It does not mean that the power should be transferred straight away and it does not bind the Secretary of State in any way.
I think that the proposition is fairly simple. At first sight, I cannot see any objection to it. In the meantime I should like to hear my right hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The threat to public order is not merely or even primarily confined to Northern Ireland. There is no border to terrorism and subversion. The new Government in Dublin are acutely aware of this fact. The architects of a European Cuba in Northern Ireland are up against one of the best armies, if not the best army, in the world, whereas the Eire forces are not large.
When we discussed Clause 12 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said something that was very important. The difficulty is that we have not got HANSARD to see what he said. However, I understood him to say that security was a matter that it would be appropriate for Northern Ireland personalities to discuss with their opposite numbers in the Republic of Ireland, whether under Clause 12 or otherwise. If my understanding is correct, surely it means that we must envisage as temporary the inclusion in the list of excluded matters the whole question of the policing of Northern Ireland and that the provincial authorities there will again take a hand in the keeping of law and order.
Before and since the Darlington Conference the control of security and who is to be responsible for its different aspects has been a bone of contention. It has been a sensitive matter, as the phrase goes, in Northern Ireland for many years, but more particlularly since the disarmament and, I suggest, demoralisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary by the late administration—I am glad to say that the morale of that body today stands high—and the disbandment, without adequate


replacement, of the Ulster Special Constabulary.
If one refers to that force and says that something is missing in the security arrangements of Northern Ireland, one is inclined to excite an incantation about bringing back the "B" Specials, who are a bogy in the minds of some people. I think they were defective in that they were largely a Protestant rather than a people's force. They were not sufficiently widely based in the community. However, it is historically untrue to say, as is often said, that no Roman Catholic ever served in the "B" Specials. When I asserted this in the Irish Times I was attacked and told that I was talking nonsense. It was only after that correspendence in the Irish Times that in some historical researches I came across a message from Sir James Craig, a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland thanking the "B" Specials for their services and paying special attention in his thanks to the Roman Catholics who had served in the Ulster Special Constabulary.
The policing of Northern Ireland, as of any other part of the United Kingdom, is for policemen rather than for soldiers. It is the desire of Her Majesty's Government and of this House that our troops should not be employed in the police rôle for a day longer than is necessary. Policing is best done by local men locally embodied and possessed of local knowledge, local contacts and local information. Though the "B" Specials are bogymen for some people, for others they are almost magicians—so omniscient that no malefactor or potential disturber of the Queen's peace could slip through their net. I think that both assertions are exaggerated. In some counties they were more effective than in others; some commandants were better than others. I believe, however, that it is by adding to the reserves of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the police reserves in which women are now included and are doing good service, that we may find an opportunity of getting our troops in Northern Ireland off the streets and back to a garrison rôle and strength.
5.0 p.m.
I look forward to the time when the House of Commons will not be saddled with the oversight of the policing of

Northern Ireland in any detailed sense. It is, therefore, appropriate that when we have an Assembly and an Executive in Northern Ireland, the Chief Executive Member, on behalf of the Executive and responsible to the Assembly, should be able to put forward views to the Secretary of State and to all responsible on matters of public order in the province.
Meanwhile, I take it that nothing in the Bill, when enacted, will preclude the discussion of security in all its domestic aspects by the Assembly.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I support what has been said by my hon. Friends in requesting that the Chief Executive Member should advise the Secretary of State. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend intends, as soon as possible—as soon as the present emergency is over—not only that the Army should be withdrawn from its present duties in Northern Ireland but that complete control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, our police in Northern Ireland, should be restored to the Executive in Northern Ireland. I hope I am correct in that assumption and that my right hon. Friend will be able to say so clearly to the Committee.
Therefore, in order to pave the way for the restoration of the control of our police to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it might be possible for my right hon. Friend to accept the clause.
In the troubles that we have been facing in Northern Ireland over the past three years—I have said three years, but it is now four or five years since the troubles commenced—one of the first things done by the subversive movement, which has led to the disturbance and the security troubles, was to discredit our police force and, in so doing, to undermine the Government. It succeeded very largely in discrediting the police partly due to the successes of its propaganda campaign in not only Northern Ireland but Britain and elsewhere in the world. The Press, particularly camera crews, which came into the riot areas in 1969 and seemed always to photograph members of the police force at a disadvantage, did much to disturb and disrupt the morale of the RUC. The work of Sir Arthur Young and the Hunt Committee appears in retrospect, in the circumstances which prevail in Northern


Ireland today, to have been very misguided.
It is, therefore, more important than can be stated in the debate that the morale of the police in Northern Ireland and the morale of the security forces should be restored. I want to press my right hon. Friend on that matter. I have seen the Army at work in my constituency. I agree with all that has been said about the Army and the job that it is doing. The Army deserves the gratitude of everyone in Northern Ireland and of all hon. Members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, the Army cannot be expected to do a police job. It is patrolling in many areas of Northern Ireland. It is patrolling in parts of my constituency. It is helping to keep law and order. But patrolling is not performing a proper police function. For example, soldiers are not stationed in a particular area long enough to get to know individuals who live in that area in the way that the ordinary police patrol gets to know them. When there are disturbances, it is not easy for the Army to identify the likely culprits or to carry out the intelligence work which an ordinary police force does.
Therefore, advice on security matters is much better when given by Northern Ireland people, by members of the Executive in Northern Ireland, when elected, and by our police, and security is much more effectively controlled by them than by some remote authority at Westminster. I realise that the present circumstances make it impossible immediately to restore control of the police and the Army to the Executive which is about to be elected, but an important intermediate step would be to accept the idea behind the clause and to consult at all times in matters concerning public order with the chief Executive member.
"Consult" is perhaps putting it at too low a level. Once the Executive has been established in Northern Ireland, any security committee that is set up should have as its chairman the chief Executive member. He is the person there who is principally responsible for law and order, which is the prime function

of any Government. This should be recognised.
If it is the Government's intention to set up an effective administration in Northern Ireland, that is the one test of whether that Administration is to be a mere facade or is to have real power and authority. If what has been said in the debate about the importance of establishing, in due course, an effective Government in Northern Ireland is correct, the acceptance of the scheme suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and by myself and some of my hon. Friends would be a token of the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government, a token which in present circumstances would be very welcome.
Certain forces at work in Northern Ireland are seeking to undermine the efforts of the Government to establish an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a form of local parliament devolved to Northern Ireland with an effective Executive in control of it. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives the assurance for which we have asked, it will go a very long way to re-establish confidence not only within the police force, important as that is, but in Northern Ireland as a whole among the electorate. The clause could achieve more than any other amendment, and so I urge my right hon. Friend to consider it favourably.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It is quite unreal in the present situation for anyone to argue that security should, as before, be brought back to a local Assembly, and I was glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who is in these matters a realist, did not make that request. What I should like to consider is the argument that there might be a case for saying that the Assembly itself, while having no power in the matter, might be able to discuss security.
This is a delicately balanced argument. On the one hand it could be said that this would bring into the Assembly all kinds of additional tensions which could upset the delicate balance. On the other hand, it could be said that the discussion of security matters would be a useful safety valve by means of which the elected representatives who are close to the situation on the ground could put their points of view directly. But if there is no one


with any confidence to reply to such debates, this could create new tensions and unrests, and probably at the end of the day would not be worth the candle.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: But if the purpose of the clause were met, the chief Executive member might be able to reply to such debates.

Mr. Mills: I think not. He would have no powers, but would merely act as a transmitter of messages. To have no power of say-so is an impossible situation for any politician.
What I believe lies behind the clause is the alternative, which relates to the position of the Executive over security. The structure set out in the Bill is such that the Executive does not have this power; that remains with this House. However, on the subject of law and order, paragraph 69 of the White Paper stated:
First, the Northern Ireland Executive will be invited to act as an advisory committee to the Secretary of State in relation to those responsibilities reserved to him. He will therefore have an opportunity to discuss matters of general public concern and interest with the elected leaders of the Northern Ireland community, and to take their views fully into account.

Captain Orr: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Mills: My hon. and gallant Friend is right. I am simply trying to underline those words and to hear from my right hon. Friend what form of advisory committee he has in mind. Is it intended to be informal or will it meet regularly? Does he intend to bring its members as much into his confidence as he can—that would seem sensible—and to try to give them a feeling that they have direct access to him on all these important matters, about which the people of Northern Ireland are desperately concerned, so that the Executive will be a more direct and permanent filter to put these points to the Secretary of State than would be possible in this House on the rare occasions when we discuss these matters in detail? I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would spell out his thinking in this respect.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I support the principle of a greater say for the Assembly in matters of security.

Linked with that is the reinstatement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as the peacekeeping and law enforcement instrument. As an ex-Service man I pay unreserved tribute to the Army—all ranks and all branches. The Secretary of State knows that I have always taken a pro-Army attitude in this House, supporting them against the same kind of destructive criticism as used to be directed against the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary. Much of the Army's present difficulty in Northern Ireland arises from the fact that an army is not the proper instrument for law and order enforcement.
5.15 p.m.
May I give a personal example of what I mean? I was recently stopped by a patrol within a short distance of my own gate. They gave my car a very thorough search. I did not object to that—I was merely 25 minutes late for a very important engagement—but I noticed that while I was immobilised no fewer than 11 cars passing the same spot were not stopped and searched. The police would never have made that mistake. They might have thought that I was a doubtful individual in some respects, but they would have known that I would not be foolhardy enough to have 100 lbs. of gelignite in my possession within 100 yards of Aldergrove Airport. They would have avoided such a waste of effort and time.
I am making no personal complaint; I am simply illustrating the difficulties and the waste of manpower involved in this kind of operation when people do not know the territory and those concerned.
This Parliament is naturally aware of the unthinking but understandable call for withdrawal of the troops from Northern Ireland. For one reason or another, the time may come when there will have to be a phase-out of the Army. The clause would set that long-term process in motion. Therefore, I hope the Committee will be realistic and will consider it favourably.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Before coming to the point in the clause, it would perhaps be appropriate, following what has been said by my hon. Friends


the Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), if I set out the background to it and restated some of the principles that underlie the present position.
As has been accepted by all speakers in this debate and as is widely accepted on all sides, so long as the present emergency continues and an Army of the present size has to be deployed in Northern Ireland, overall control of security must remain in this House, which, of course, is responsible for our troops. I should, however, make one point clear to my hon. Friend: security and law and order has been made a reserved matter, not an excepted matter. If it had been an excepted matter, that would have meant that it could never at any time be transferred hack to Northern Ireland.
The reason is simple. It is that if the emergency were ended and it were then possible to withdraw the Army to the normal garrison size which at one time it held there and not to use it in a police rôle at all there would be substantial advantages in transferring law and order back to Northern Ireland. It has always been envisaged that in those circumstances that possibility would have to be very much in the minds of the Government and the House.
There can be no absolute commitment, because no one can tell when the emergency will end and that happy state of affairs from which everyone would benefit, will arise. But the possibility is there and it is important to stress it.
Against that background, we come to the present position. It is true that the Army is not trained for police duties. It is true, too, that policemen are much better at doing a police job than the Army is. The tragedy is that since 1969 it has been inevitable, in the circumstances, that the Army has had to be used for these duties. We do not need to go over the history of the matter or to consider why that is so. It is a fact that that has had to be done. There can be no doubt that it must be the main object of policy to build up the police, because upon that, upon the ending of the emergency, and upon the removal of violence depends the reduction of the Army and the building up of the police.
It is with that intention, and against the background that I have described, that I come to the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) read the relevant passage in the White Paper about the Northern Ireland Executive being invited to act as an advisory committee to the Secretary of State in relation to the security responsibility reserved to him. I confirm that commitment in the White Paper. That is the intention of the Government.
The intention is that meetings of a formal nature should be undertaken regularly. Consistent with the responsibility for security matters, it would obviously be right for the Secretary of State to take the Executive into his confidence as much as he could. I think that that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North about such an advisory committee.
In addition, we said in the White Paper that the police authority should be reconstituted so as to introduce into it an element drawn from elected representatives to the Assembly. As we argued last night, provision is made for that in Clause 48(1)(c).
It was also said in the White Paper—and we believe this to be right—that local committees of the new district councils should have advisory responsibility in relation to the policing of their districts so that they would be involved in what was being done. We are committed to the involvement in these matters at all levels of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the Chief Constable and the GOC being members of the advisory committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am coming on to deal with the clause in greater detail. I should not wish to formalise either this committee or the consultations, because there is a risk in doing so in an Act of Parliament. Consistent with having the Executive acting as an advisory committee, it would be essential for the Secretary of State to be in close contact with it on these matters. I give the absolute commitment that that will be my intention and desire.
Despite the absolute intention to do what the clause suggests, I put it to the


Committee that to write such a provision into the Bill could lead to certain difficulties and dangers, and that that would apply as much to writing in the commitment in the White Paper as to setting out the position of the Executive. There is no need for a statutory provision to that effect. The commitment has been clearly stated, and it is not necessary for it to be in the Bill.
If this provision were in the Bill despite its not being necessary, there would be a danger of its leading to trouble in the present situation. Perhaps I might give the Committee an example of the kind of situation in which I have frequently found myself during the last year. Instant decisions frequently have to be taken. The only person who can take the decision is the person with overall responsibility. He is the person who, even though he might—as I often did—wish to consult his Cabinet colleagues, has to take the decision himself because of the nature of the problem. If it were written into the Bill that advice had to be sought on all matters at all times, it could on occasion be argued that the Secretary of State had not fulfilled his statutory duty. It could be asked whether he had taken the advice of the Executive when he would not have had time to do so. The fact that in those circumstances he had not sought advice would put both him and the Executive in a difficult situation, because it would have to be admitted that there had not been any consultation between them. It could, therefore, be argued that they were in breach of their statutory responsibilities, and that could lead to misunderstanding and some friction.
That view applies also to the question of having the Executive as an advisory committee and who comes to it. If we formalise the procedure and write it into the Bill, people who wish to be difficult will be able to raise questions about whether there has been any breach of a statutory obligation.
Co-operation between the new Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State is of the greatest importance, and I re-state the commitments in the White Paper because I think that they are of the greatest value, but, for the reasons that I have stated, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press me to write this

provision into the Bill because by doing so, and by formalising these procedures, we should in the end frustrate the development of co-operation which we are all seeking to foster and which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East emphasised.
The commitment set out in the White Paper relating to the Executive as an advisory committee stands. The same applies to the police authority. I hope to have the closest possible relationship with the Executive on all security matters, but it would be a mistake to put this provision into statutory form and thereby create areas of friction which it would be better to avoid.
I hope that I have dealt with the principal points of the clause. I hope, too, that I shall not be pressed to write this provision into the Bill and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will feel able to withdraw it.

Captain Orr: Once again my right hon. Friend has been exceedingly helpful to the Committee. One of the things that troubled us when comparing the Bill with the White Paper was that there appeared to be no obligation in the Bill for consultations with any elected representatives. My right hon. Friend has confirmed that he intends to carry out what is laid down in the White Paper, and in doing so he has convinced me of the difficulties that would arise if these provisions were written into the Bill. I found it difficult to draft a suitable form of words on the subject, and the best that I was able to do is shown in the clause.
It might be useful to add to what some of my hon. Friends have said about the Army. This might be a useful occasion on which to underline the fact that, although we envisage the Army's eventually being withdrawn to its garrison strength and position, and policing eventually going back to Northern Ireland control, nobody ought to be in any doubt that the vast majority of people in Ulster are immensely proud of the Army and are determined to see that it is sustained and supported.
People in Ulster have immense regard for the acts of heroism that are performed daily by members of the Army. One has only to think of Major Kearon


and his hair-raising drive into the River Foyle yesterday to realise how much we owe to men of that calibre. We should put on the record our immense admiration for the Army and our detestation—and we should not put it weaker than that—of those who seek to make its task more difficult and of those of whatever section of the community who resist the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his attitude on this and for confirming that until a happier time comes about that we can envisage, starting almost immediately after the Executive and the Assembly have been formed, the consultation predicted in the White Paper will be carried out. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

REPRESENTATION IN UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT

(1) Section 19 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 is hereby repealed.

(2) The representation of Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be not less than 16 members.—[Captain Orr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 p.m.

Captain Orr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
For the benefit of those not familiar with Section 19 of the Government of Ireland Act I can explain that it was the section which laid down a maximum for the number of Members to represent both Southern and Northern Ireland. It is the section which still governs representation in this House. It laid down that:
Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine, the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) After the appointed day the number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-six, and the constituencies returning those members shall
…be the constituencies named in the Fifth Schedule".
That Act was a considerable piece of devolution. It set up in Ireland a lord-lieutenant and two Parliaments with considerable powers. It gave those Parlia-

ments considerable powers over taxation, powers which steadily diminished over the years as the development of taxation took place in the rest of the kingdom. None the less, there was a considerable degree of devolution, and as a quid pro quo for that it was thought that both parts of Ireland should have a considerably diminished representation in this House. The number laid down as a maximum in Northern Ireland then was 13. Since the abolition of the university seat that was reduced to 12. The question now facing us is whether or not what is being done in this Act, which to a considerable degree replaces the 1920 Act, is justified. Can there be any conceivable justification in equity, fairness and on any kind of logic that this diminution in the representation of the Northern Ireland electorate in this House shall be continued? I cannot for the life of me see that there is any justification for it.
Let us take the simple position of taxation. It was this House which down the centuries fought for the principle of no taxation without representation. Indeed, one can scarcely think of any justification for taxation of any part of the kingdom without proper and fair representation. If Northern Ireland were in a different position on taxation, even to a comparatively minor degree, there might be an argument. But under the Bill there is no difference in the application of taxation. The people of Northern Ireland are taxed in exactly the same way as the people in the rest of the kingdom. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer compiles his Budget and when the Finance Bill goes through the House they apply to my constituents in exactly the same way and according to exactly the same principles as to the constituents of other hon. Members. On the ground of taxation alone there is no argument for Northern Ireland being under-represented in this House.
It is being argued that the degree of devolution of power is a reason for a diminution of the number of Members and for putting the electors in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage with their fellows? I do not see how that argument can be sustained in the light of this Bill. We are not doing the same kind of thing as was done in 1920. There is a considerable difference. Then we set up a Government of Northern Ireland, a


Governor of Northern Ireland, a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Northern Ireland and a Privy Council of Northern Ireland. We devolved upon that Parliament at the end of three years very considerable powers. Under this Bill we are not proposing to devolve anything like the same sort of power.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) described this measure as a move towards integration, and he is right in that. There is to be no Governor of Northern Ireland, as we said in our debate on the subject yesterday. There is to be no Government of Northern Ireland in the ordinary sense. Considerably more powers are excepted matters now that were reserved matters under the 1920 Act. Even those matters which it is envisaged shall be transferred do not include all the other matters which we shall talk about on the amendments to the schedule.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds a totally different position from anything that was set out in the 1920 Act. He is for the present, and for the foreseeable future will be, the man who rules Northern Ireland. He is responsible to this House. It seems to me an extraordinary proposition that while my right hon. Friend, the head of the Executive, is concerned with matters of prime interest to Northern Ireland, the Province is deprived of full representation in this House. I can see no argument in any kind of equity, justice, or ordinary British principles of fair representation that could conceivably justify such a position.
I sought to put an amendment down earlier which would have left to the boundary commission the decision on how many Members Northern Ireland should have in this House. For a reason which I did not understand, it was out of order. I would have preferred that it had been left to an impartial body like the boundary commission to decide on the basis of either Scotland or the United Kingdom as a whole, or even on the basis of England—which would have produced the smallest representation—what would be a fair representation of Northern Ireland in this House.
I produced figures on Second Reading. Taking the English average, I work out that we should have four more Members

in this House. I suggest in the clause that the representation here should be not fewer than 16. That is a rough and ready figure. I would much have preferred, had it been in order, or had it been possible to draft a complicated means of doing it, to see the decision on the numbers made by the boundary commission.
I return to the simple proposition that, for a part of this kingdom to which taxation applies in exactly the same way as any other part, and on which there is being devolved no particular degree of devolution, there is no possible justification, upon any principle of fairness or equity, for keeping Northern Ireland under-represented in this House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to support the powerful case which has been made for the clause by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It would have been an absurdity if when we were enacting a new constitution for Northern Ireland—one which largely sweeps away all that has been in the past since the 1920 Act and earlier—this House had not devoted its attention to the manner in which our fellow citizens in the six counties of Northern Ireland are represented.
The question of a relationship between what, in olden days, used to be called Home Rule, and representation in the House of Commons has a long history. Many and many a summer at Hawarden did Mr. Gladstone ponder upon the theological problems of whether, given Home Rule, representation in this House should cease altogther or whether it should be diminished, and, if so, on what principle it should be diminished.
As often happens, the result, with which we have lived for more than 50 years, in the 1920 Act, was a compromise for which no fully satisfactory logical explanation could be given. It was a compromise which resulted in the few hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats voting in this House upon matters which, in their own constituencies, were decided in another assembly. It was an anomaly which there is no means of justifying except by the process of history and by the fact that it had been desired upon balance at a past


point of time to retain, in the form of representation, a link between the Province of Ulster and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
5.45 p.m.
But I believe we have now come to a point when we can put those problems, traditions and anomalies behind us, because one thing is perfectly clear upon the face of the Bill and of the concept which is involved, and that is that, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, the House and the Government of the United Kingdom are asserting decisively in the Bill that they will be the Government of Northern Ireland, that, although there will be a provincial Assembly and a provincial Executive, and though it is hoped that in course of time a substantial devolution to that Assembly and that Executive might take place, still it is the determination of the Government here and of this House that it shall be through our will and our policy—as indeed it is through the Army of the United Kingdom that for the past four years a semblance of law and order has been maintained in Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland shall be governed and administered.
It is, therefore, as clause after clause spells out, a form of government in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be the master. The House has agreed to that. It has agreed to that in principle in the White Paper. It has agreed to that in clause after clause of the Bill, where the very being, the very coming into existence and the continued operation, both of the Executive and of the Assembly are dependent on the judgment of my right hon. Friend. When he answered amendment after amendment last night, my right hon. Friend appealed to the House on the ground that in the last resort he would be answerable.
Even on a small matter—a question of what should be done by Order in Council—my right hon. Friend, entirely reasonably, said that there may be powers in the Bill for such-and-such to be done by Order in Council, but in the end it will be the House which says what it will accept and what it will not accept. So I do not think there can be any dispute that, warmly though we might wish to see the Assembly and the Executive functioning, though we might wish to

see their scope expand from the minimum with which they will begin, there is a decisive difference between this constitution and anything which has been enacted before since the earliest of the home rule legislation for Ireland and for Northern Ireland.
From that, it seems to me to follow ineluctably that, not formally as in the past—because formally in the past this House had legislative responsibility, and, therefore, as the initiator of legislation in this House, Her Majesty's Government had executive supremacy in Northern Ireland—but practically, the Secretary of State and the House are to govern Northern Ireland and to legislate for it. Therefore, our fellow citizens in that part of the country which is most affected should be fully represented in this House, where the Government will be called to account, where their actions will be debated, and where the key legislation, whether it be subordinate or primary legislation, will be passed, as it is being debated today.
In the past 15 or 16 months since the Stormont Parliament was prorogued and the emergency régime was brought into force, some of us have from time to time drawn attention to the anomaly that we were here debating and legislating for Northern Ireland when Northern Ireland was the one part of the kingdom which, having no representation then at home, had an inadequate representation in this Chamber. Quite properly, hon. Members representing English constituencies have pointed out the anomaly—and it is an anomaly in which we are involved at this moment—that a House in which Northern Ireland is underrepresented is enacting the new constitution for Northern Ireland. I believe that it would be a constitutional monstrosity that this should be allowed to continue. The very principles on which this House has lived and grown demand that now, in this new dispensation, there should be full—I will come to the meaning of that word in a moment—representation of Northern Ireland along with the rest of the kingdom.
The House, not unnaturally, has always taken a generous view towards the question of representation, and a particularly generous view towards the representation of those who in any respect can be regarded as a minority. Of course, it


is a common joke of the Englishman and of those who represent English constituencies that there are preferences for everybody except the English. Nevertheless, it is an unmistakable principle—I think that the national sense of the United Kingdom is not unconnected with it—that the largest part of this kingdom has deliberately conceded to the other parts a higher and not a lower level of representation.
Whether it be because they are regarded in some sense as peripheral, whether it be because in the outer parts of the kingdom, in Wales and Scotland, distances are relatively great in relation to population, whatever may be the precise ground on which we choose to defend it, the fact is that for many decades—indeed, for centuries—so far from Parliament's under-representing the parts of the kingdom which could be regarded as having minority interests, it has been the policy of Parliament that if in doubt they should be over-represented.
Therefore, I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend has been deliberately leaning over backwards to put the case at its minimum. In my view, the natural case is for higher representation of Northern Ireland than that which he proposes. Representation on a higher scale would be consonant with our past practice and with the representation of other parts of the country.
But there is another reason, of a quite different character, why I believe that we should not merely take this step now but should take it generously. The reason why we are here debating the Bill today is not that for some theoretical reasons the form of government in Northern Ireland before 1973 seemed to our wisdom unsatisfactory, and that, therefore, in an access of perfectionism, we decided to introduce a new constitution. It is that the breakdown in Northern Ireland of that protection to which all our fellow citizens are entitled forced upon the attention of the House the affairs of the six counties of Northern Ireland. It was not because we chose to do it but because we found ourselves driven to concern ourselves in this House, as we have not done for more than 50 years, with Northern Ireland. It was because we were conscious that within our responsibility men,

women and children were suffering and dying.
It is not unnatural that Parliament should have a great belief in parliamentary representation and that the House of Commons, above all, should have a great belief in the power of representation in the House of Commons. It seems that for this House, at a moment when our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland are living in circumstances almost unimaginable to the rest of their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom, to extend to them full representation would not merely be an evidence—and the most potent which we could give—of our concern but would be an act which in itself would help to bring reassurance.
I am not arguing at this moment that to do so would be a means of binding Northern Ireland more permanently and more closely to the rest of the United Kingdom. That could be argued, but it is not the argument which I am making. The argument which I am putting forward is one which I believe should be equally acceptable to anyone who believed that the participation of Ulster in the United Kingdom was a temporary and transitional phenomenom. I believe that such a person, provided that he was imbued at all with the principle of parliamentary and democratic representation, would be impressed by the case for full and fair representation under this constitution in this Parliament.
The argument is used—and I dare say that my right hon. Friend will use it again—that it we were now to extend Northern Ireland representation that would become a barrier to the increase of devolution—that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly might aspire to regain—although it would be, I must confess, contrary to the spirit of this legislation if it did so—the amplitude and the authority of the former Stormont Parliament and administration. We would then at some indeterminate point of time be faced with the necessity of retrenching again. Alternatively, the fact of full representation could be used as an argument against further devolution.
I do not think that either aspect of that argument can be taken seriously. I should like to hear an hon. Member, if my right hon. Friend came forward with an order to transfer one, two or


three more subjects to the administration in Northern Ireland, opposing such an order on the ground that there were 16 Ulster Members sitting in this House. That would seem to me totally unrealistic. However, even if the Government were to take the view that they could achieve so large a redevolution, if I may permit myself that expression, so that full representation would once again become inappropriate, we have become quite accustomed to legislating for Northern Ireland. It is no longer an unheard of thing to have a Bill placed before the House to alter the constitution of Northern Ireland. There is nothing entrenched in our constitution, if we enact in the Bill that there will be 16 Members to prevent this Parliament or another Parliament either increasing or reducing that number. So I ask my right hon. Friend not to rest upon an argument which really cannot be taken very seriously.
When faced with crises in the relationship of this House with those who have been governed by this House or who have been the responsibility of this Rouse, the key to success, when we have enjoyed it, has always been generosity. We have shown a willingness to share, and to share on more than an equal basis, what we ourselves enjoy.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

Perhaps it is an historical reminiscence worthy of a few seconds to remind the House that the resolution which Edmund Burke was proposing when he made his celebrated speech for conciliation with Amercia drew attention to the fact, in so many words, that the North American colonies did not have representation in this House. I believe that the same spirit both of conviction in the sovereign principle of our own existence and of generosity should inspire us when considering the Bill. I should like to feel that I could move my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government, now that we have the opportunity, now that a new ordinance and a new order of things is being inaugurated, to include an act of generosity which would be seen and understood as such not by just one section but by all in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMaster: After such a powerful and moving speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) there is very little I can say in support of the new clause which was so ably proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said it appeared to be an anomaly that there should be so few Northern Ireland hon. Members in this House. I shall add one thought to that from the Northern Ireland point of view. Over the past three or four years we have been the subject of a bitter attack which culminated in the suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament in March of last year. One of the reasons for that suspension was the suggestion that we had been unfair to a minority in Northern Ireland and that that minority was not being properly represented in the old Stormont. At the same time this House allows the minority in Northern Ireland not to be properly represented at Westminster.
It seems to be blowing hot and cold to suggest that in some way the Northern Ireland Parliament was at fault while continuing and perpetuating an under-representation at Westminster. The matters which are set out in Schedule 2, the excepted matters, show the detailed and important matters which are left to this House on which Northern Ireland does not and will not have a proper voice.
My hon. and gallant Friend suggests that there should be 16 hon. Members from Northern Ireland. If we compare Northern Ireland and its population with Scotland the number should be more like 22. England itself is less well represented than Scotland, and if a comparison with England were made the number from Northern Ireland would be 18. Thus, it can fairly be said that between 18 and 20 Members—say, 20—would be the proper representation for Northern Ireland. Therefore, in asking for 16 we are being modest.
It must be remembered that in all matters dealing with taxation the House of Commons has, and will continue to have, complete and sovereign power. Is it fair that when changes in taxation are


being made Northern Ireland should be under-represented? Even when there is a Parliament in Northern Ireland, taxation, foreign affairs, defence, the Army and other vital matters of concern to Northern Ireland are dealt with by the House of Commons. For example, treason and treason felony and the special powers and other provisions for dealing with terrorism, set out in Schedule 2 as excepted matters, can be dealt with only in the House of Commons. Northern Ireland has a particular interest in them. Yet it is, and will remain, underrepresented.
One important issue concerns the European Economic Community. The debate and negotiations which fundamentally affect Northern Ireland fall within the prerogative of Westminster. One aspect concerning us all at the moment is the type of help which Northern Ireland, as a development area, is to receive from the EEC. These matters should be debated with full representation from Northern Ireland in the House, because Northern Ireland will be playing its part and making its contribution to the Community and the return which the United Kingdom expects from it through assistance to development areas. The subject will be dealt with by the House of Commons only, although it perhaps concerns Northern Ireland more than any other part of the United Kingdom.
Surely in these matters Northern Ireland should have more than its existing 12 Members. Such a low representation means that we can take little part in debate. We all know of the pressure from hon. Members to take part in debates. The pressure on the Chair when choosing speakers is particularly heavy. Thus, the opportunities for Ulster Members to play a full and important part in debates and to make the views of Northern Ireland known to the House and have them properly considered by Her Majesty's Government are correspondingly limited.
In addition to the excepted matters detailed in Schedule 2, there are the reserved matters set out in Schedule 3 which may at some time in the future be transferred to Northern Ireland. But all of them are being considered only at Westminster, and it is because they cover

such important aspects of the government of Northern Ireland that I feel that the case for fuller representation of Northern Ireland should be considered with the utmost sympathy by my right hon. Friend.
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said in suggesting that some of the reserved measures may at some time be transferred to a Northern Ireland Executive. I am thinking particularly of those dealing with the criminal law. All the main appointments of judges will continue to be the prerogative of the United Kingdom Parliament, coming under Schedule 2 rather than Schedule 3, but there are certain aspects in Schedule 3, dealing particularly with bankruptcies, insolvencies, regulation of the profession of solicitors, and so on, which are less important matters of the administration of justice and may at some time be transferred to Northern Ireland.
Is it sound to argue that representation of Northern Ireland should be limited to 12 because these minor matters may at some time be transferred to Northern Ireland? Even if they are transferred, it is always possible, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. South-West said, to redress the membership from Northern Ireland again, although that, in the circumstances, is an argument without great merit. I support new Clause 6 as strongly as I can.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I should like to take part in the debate because in previous proceedings in the House I have made my position clear on this issue. On analogous issues I have also taken up stances which are relevant. When we came to discuss the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England and Wales, I did not support the Government because Bradford was to be under-represented as a result. How much more now, when the most strife-torn and troubled part of the kingdom is to continue to find itself under-represented in the House of Commons at the very time when we are enacting constitutional proposals which will, of course, reduce the amount of effective devolution to a locally-elected assembly or Parliament?
Even to the most naive Englishman, it is clear that, when the full panoply of the 1920 Act has been dismantled, when


there are no Governor, no Prime Minister and no Parliament in Northern Ireland, when the Executive are to be the appointees of the Secretary of State, and when the proviso, enshrined in the 1949 Act and repeated in the 1969 Downing Street Declaration, that Ulster shall continue to be a part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of the Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland want it, is being changed in the way in which it is being changed, there is indeed a diminution of the effective powers of the locally-elected Assembly or Parliament.
In this situation, it is especially important that we in this sovereign, Imperial Parliament should have effective and adequate representation from Northern Ireland. If the locally-elected Assembly is to have the diminution of powers which seems likely to be the case under the Bill, ambitious and able politicians in Northern Ireland may wish to seek their political career in the sovereign Parliament at Westminster to a greater extent than they might in the somewhat emasculated locally-elected Assembly. We should, therefore, make special provision for them and new Clause 6 is very good for that purpose.
I also believe that hon. Members from Northern Ireland, of whatever political complexion, play a very valuable educational function in our proceedings.
6.15 p.m.
We are all too little aware of the situation in Northern Ireland and, as I have said, it is a part of the kingdom that has been especially troubled. It is my belief that had we been more fully aware, had we had more hon. Members from Northern Ireland, at the critical times in 1968 and 1969 this House might have acted with greater circumspection. One can never from hindsight make sweeping generalisations from historical judgments of this kind, but it is a possibility and I do not believe, any more than does The Timesin its leading editorial today, that with the passage of this legislation somehow our problems will be over and that if this Assembly does not work we can wash our hands of it and tell Ulster that it has had its last chance. The people of Northern Ireland, as they have themselves declared, con-

tinue to wish to be members of the United Kingdom and we in this Parliament will have to continue to provide adequate legislation for their needs, and to ensure that they have enough representatives in this Parliament to play their full part in its legislative processes.
I said that hon. Members from Northern Ireland fulfil a valuable educational function. I believe this to be the case whatever their political complexion. It might be argued—probably not explicitly, but in their more private and frank moments Ministers might agree—that there is reluctance to increase the representation in case we have, to put it crudely, an increase here in the more troublesome elements such as manifested themselves before Home Rule in the last century. But I believe that whatever their sentiments nationalists and republicans have as much of an educational and legislative rôle to play in this House as any other politicians from Northern Ireland. So this educaitonal function goes right across the spectrum.
There has been much talk of the Irish dimension. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke of the influence of Northern Ireland Members in such vital matters as defence and foreign affairs. We are all well aware of the great strategic importance to the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland. I think we are particularly well aware of this fact at a time when the Soviet fleet is growing in strength and when the North Atlantic is becoming an area of great-power competition in the maritime sense. Winston Churchill used to remind us of the importance of Northern Ireland in the last great war that this country faced. I am convinced that Northern Ireland, like the whole of the island of Ireland, will have continuing strategic importance to us, and from the point of view of defence industries as well Northern Ireland is vital to the United Kingdom. Short Brothers and Harland, for example, provide a very important capability in the industrial sense, and the great shipyards of Harland and Wolff are vitally important to the United Kingdom. So when matters of strategy, matters of defence, matters of major industrial importance such as shipbuilding and advanced technical industries like aerospace come to be debated in this House it is right that Northern Ireland should


have its fair share of Members in this Parliament.
Looking at the foreign policy implications more widely, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East spoke about the Common Market. This, again, impinges on the Irish dimension because there are optimists who say that it is through the mechanism of the Common Market that a greater degree of understanding and co-operation will be forged between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is as it may be, but I know that in the European Parliament there is a need for adequate representation for Northern Ireland. This is recognised by Her Majesty's Government and they have sent one deputy to that Assembly at Strasbourg. If there were more representatives from Northern Ireland here, it might be that we could increase that representation. It might also be that we should have a better opportunity of having members from Northern Ireland in Stormont Castle—that is to say members who were able to take office in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not believe this would necessarily be a bad thing either.
So for all sorts of considerations—considerations of justice, consideration of better working in this House of Commons on matters that affect Northern Ireland—and also for the reassurance of the people of Northern Ireland who, in particularly difficult times, times of bloodshed and strife, have had to endure suffering and put up with the legislation of this House, often against their will, while being under-represented in this place, it is appropriate and right that we should support this amendment. I only regret that because of the mechanism of pairing I am not able to express my feelings with my feet, although I hope I have done so adequately with my voice.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The rhetoric of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was on this occasion very much more persuasive than on other occasions, and I am glad to declare, having put my name to this amendment, that it has my full support and that I feel very strongly indeed on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has also put in very

formidable language the case many of us support on this matter, and there is perhaps not much one can usefully add. However, I think it important to put on record some of the figures brought out in a parliamentary answer to me some three or four months ago.
I was told that the average constituency in Northern Ireland consisted of some 85,000 people, whilst the average constituency throughout the United Kingdom was 62,000, the average for Wales 54,000, and the average for Scotland 52,000. It will be noted that both Wales and Scotland have rather fewer people in each constituency, I imagine because of the size of the constituencies and also perhaps because of the greater distances and special regional problems in relation to those areas.
I would argue not only that under the new Bill is Northern Ireland going to be under-represented but that under the previous legislation when Stormont was in existence Northern Ireland was basically under-represented. So we are not approaching something new; it has merely been additionally underlined by this new measure. My right hon. Friend says that we are moving towards closer integration in this measure, and I accept that judgment. He knows that basically I accept the principles of the White Paper and voted in favour of it, but it seems to me that there is a missing dimension in the White Paper.
The Secretary of State will have very much greater powers, and one sees running right through the Bill that he is going to have to play a major rôle in the development of the new Assembly and the new institutions in Belfast. I think that flexibility is right and that there is no alternative to it. But the other side of the argument is surely that if that argument is accepted there must be proper and adequate representation in this House of Commons for the people of Northern Ireland, and that we have not got. I would estimate that it should be something like 18 to 19 if we take the Scottish or Welsh example, or 16 to 17 if we take the United Kingdom average. The latter is the figure I have in mind.
There is the equally important point that if a Secretary of State is to operate in this House with these very extensive powers spreading into all areas of


Northern Ireland life, having to operate in many ways through the Assembly, he will have a very much more difficult job if he does not have an adequate parliamentary backing of colleagues from Northern Ireland in this House. It would be very much easier for a Secretary of State to work effectively with 16 to 17 Northern Ireland Members in this House than with the very limited number we are to have.
The legislation we have been dealing with recently, the legislation we are examining in this sparsely-attended Committee, and the limited number of Questions dealt with earlier today, underline the point clearly that if Westminster is to play a major rôle in this it cannot have it politically on the cheap. It must be recognised that this is the other side of the coin. My right hon. Friend knows I have voted in favour of the White Paper, I have spoken in favour of it and I have made it clear that there is no alternative but to make these proposals work. With this new rearrangement, the new Assembly, a new Irish dimension and a rearrangement of many of the activities of Northern Ireland, there is a danger that there will be a major flaw if we fail to make the Irish dimension a reality. That means that there must be adequate representation in this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke of the need for reassurance, and I underline his words. This is why I say that I entirely accept the sovereignty of this House. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke of a compact, and I do not quarrel with that. The other side of the coin is that this is a two-way process which we have to make work. That can he done effectively only by building in an additional Westminster dimension, which means additional Members of Parliament so that there are people here who want to represent Northern Ireland and will feel it worth while to come here.
We are probably in danger of it being said and believed by people in political circles that we are coming to the end of an era if people are not prepared to work and develop the Westminster relationship. This is an important factor in the White Paper. I do not know why adequate representation has not been given to Northern Ireland. I do not know

whethere it is for political or other reasons that this has been blocked. I hope very much that the White Paper proposals will succeed. One of the elements which could cause them to fail would be the failure to make adequate provision for Northern Ireland in this House. This is not mere rhetoric; it is an important reality. I imagine that it is too late for the Government to think again on this. I hope I am wrong. This is something to which the Government should not close their mind over the next year. I hope that my words will have had some impact on the Front Bench.

Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: It was not my intention to speak at this stage in the debate, but lest the Committee gets the impression that everyone from Northern Ireland wants increased representation I would like to make my position clear. I have no quarrel with the usual impeccable logic of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) except that which I always have with his impeccable logic. It is that it has only one flaw—it is always based on the wrong original premise.
In this case I believe the right hon. Gentleman bases his argument on the fact that he claims representation for Northern Ireland in this House to be democratic. My argument is that none of us ought to be here. We are overrepresented to the tune of 12 Members. We ought to be in our own independent country. I want to make the position of the people I represent quite clear. Inasmuch as we can prevent it, not one single, solitary further Member will put his foot over that threshold.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am afraid that I cannot hope to emulate the short intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey). I content myself by saying that I support the clause, which seeks to increase our numbers at Westminster. I speak as the Member representing the largest electorate in the whole of the United Kingdom, an electorate which stands at the moment at around 150,000. Even with the re-drawing of the boundary it will contain well over 115,000 electors. Even before 1972 the volume of constituency work was something of a burden.
With the abolition of Stormont in March 1972 this work load increased by over 50 per cent. I know that this was the experience of the rest of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland. I am aware that the Secretary of State made arrangements for former Stormont Members to have facilities for dealing with the problems of their constituents. The problem was that the constituents entirely missed this point and assumed that since Stormont had been suspended, or abolished as they chose to regard it, they had ceased to have any Members of Parliament there or, if they had, such Members had very little influence or real power to intervene on their behalf.
6.30 p.m.
I strongly support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about the limitations on the proposed Assembly structure. I accept too that, whether he likes it or not, the Secretary of State will continue to be regarded as the man with the real power. Because he is responsible to Westminster and because we function here, the problems will continue to be channelled to him through us—tile very small band of Northern Ireland Members. Whatever powers we may in future give to the new Assembly, the people of Northern Ireland will not be detached from the belief that only by going through their Westminster representatives to the real source of power will they achieve anything.
At present in South Antrim there are as many as eight people ranging over the entire constituency in an endeavour to solicit electoral support for Assembly membership. They will not be seen to have any specific territorial responsibility. They will simply be lumped together, a body of diverse people holding different political views and not, perhaps, spread geographically over the constituency. It will then be extremely difficult to convince the electorate that they have anyone representing them in the Assembly responsible for their particular locality.
For all these reasons the burden will continue to rest on the small band of Northern Ireland Members here. I beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider the Government's attitude and to do his best to meet the weight of opinion expressed

today, an opinion which is underpinned, despite what the hon. Lady had to say, by the fact that the Unionist Party, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who represents the Alliance Party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is absent electioneering, will support this plea for adequate representation here.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: This is probably the most important debate during the passage of the entire Bill. When I read the White Paper I wrote on the back, "The crux of the whole question in Northern Ireland is the number of Westminster representatives against the amount of power devolved to the new Assembly." I stick to that. I agree wholeheartedly with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said—that this was the crux of the matter with regard to the American colonies.
It is a long-standing principle that the right of Parliament to levy taxation and the right of the people to representation in Parliament were interdependent. I go so far as to say that in the House of Commons we have a long-established practice of equality of representation between one constituency and another, weighted only by remoteness from Westminster.
I make no apology for doing a little research into the electoral lists of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Prime Minister represents 67,476 electors. The man in between—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—represents 54,593 electors. The Foreign Secretary, in the extreme north, represents 34,133 electors. Here there is a complete parallel with the principle that the further one goes from Westminster the smaller is the number of constituents represented. That is justified, because the time and effort spent in travelling to and from the House of Commons takes up more energy than one might expect.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred to 12 representatives. Originally we had 13, but we lost one because of the abolition of the


university seat. Since then there has been a population explosion in Northern Ireland, and the population figures today are much greater than they were in 1920. If, in 1920, Northern Ireland had been granted full parity of representation with the most comparable area of Great Britain—Glasgow and the county constituencies beyond to the north and west —we should have had 16 representatives, which is what we are asking for today.
It was estimated then that the taxation levied by the Parliament of Northern Ireland under its transferred taxation powers would amount to one-fifth of all the taxation collected in Northern Ireland. In 1924 the proportion was exactly one-fifth—£2·2 million out of £11 million. Accordingly, the number of representatives was reduced to 12.
Many people of various political parties made representations to the Crowther Commission when it visited Northern Ireland. One question was whether we should go for an increased representation in the Mother of Parliaments. For some unknown reason the members of the Unionist Party suggested that we should work this out not by increasing the representation at Westminster but by apportioning the taxation more in line with the relative costs of reserved and transferred services. That is a fallacious argument.
In the House of Commons there are 12 representatives from Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said, since the prorogation of Stormont our work has doubled. I challenge any hon. or right hon. Member to find a group of 12 Members who have had more work placed on their shoulders during the past 12 months than have the representatives from Northern Ireland. The Bill proposes to reserve all taxation powers to the United Kingdom Parliament. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that it is an integrationist Bill. Therefore, Northern Ireland should be entitled to full parity of representation with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I have looked up the figures for the 1970 General Election. Glasgow comprises 571,318 electors, the electoral quota being 38,087. On that basis, the 263,024 electors in Belfast are entitled

to 6·9 representatives. The area northwest of Glasgow—comprising Argyll; Dunbartonshire, West; Caithness and Sutherland; Kinross and West Perthshire; Ross and Cromarty; Inverness; West Stirlingshire; and the Western Isles—comprises 317,156 electors, and the electoral quota is 39,644. On that basis, the 771,192 electors in the Northern Ireland counties are entitled to 18·7 Members. The 18·7 Members for the counties of Northern Ireland and 6·9 for Belfast gives a total of 25·6. I do not know who would represent the 0·6. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South is modest in asking for 16. In my estimation the correct figure is 25·6.
The case for increased representation is unanswerable. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said. If we are generous we will recognise that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland would not give two hoots about what happened at the Assembly if they knew in their hearts that they were fully represented in Westminster. That is the key to the whole question of the future of Northern Ireland.
If the clause is rejected, it will amount to discrimination against the people of Northern Ireland and this will be inconsistent with the sentiments expressed in the White Paper. It could be termed a gerrymander—explicable only as a political expedient to buy bipartisan support.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South said that it was inconceivable that there should not be increased representation. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that he could not agree to any increase in representation for Northern Ireland because it might upset the balance between the two major parties in this country. I have reached the conclusion that he must have thought that he would be resonsible for paying for the additional representation from Northern Ireland. The common practice is to give minority areas more representation than they are entitled to. There is minority representation in the House of Commons, including the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey), Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). They are their own chief whips and they


can come and go as they wish. If one looks back over the debates of the last decade one finds that on every occasion they have attended they have been called by Mr. Speaker and have been given proportionately more speaking time.

Mrs. McAliskey: That is a bone of contention. It is true that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is always called when he comes to the House of Commons, but that is all.

Mr. Maginnis: I will not comment on that, but I think that the hon. Lady has been called on most occasions when she has attended. It has been the long-established practice to have regard to minorities and to areas that have a minority representation.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider urgently the possibility of increasing the representation of Northern Ireland here in the Mother of Parliaments. If he is generous in this respect a lot of the trouble in Northern Ireland will come to an end in the near future.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If all that there was to the argument about increased representation for Northern Ireland was the numerical logic argument which has been put forward today I should have to concede a great deal. But we are not discussing numerical logic. We are discussing a part of the United Kingdom which is quite different from Wales and Scotland, where a large number of people do not wish to be in the United Kingdom and where there have been problems of shooting and killing resulting in our having to have 20,000 troops there at certain times and an average of 15,000. Much as I have come to know members of the Unionist Party in this House over the past couple of years, I always find it astonishing that they shut their eyes to this basic fact of the problem in Northern Ireland.
The other day, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) argued in favour of integration, whereas today the implication was that this Bill had an integrationist tendency. I put to him the point about the "alien wedge" in Northern Ireland, which is a state of affairs that I have had to accept in recent years as I have attempted to get to know more about Northern

Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that if there were to be integration it would be a means, because of Westminster parliamentary methods, of getting the minority in Northern Ireland to accept integration. That was the way that he put it.

Mr. Powell: Not quite. What I said was that it would be an opportunity for that part of the minority which accepts Union and is prepared to work for it to play a full part in the political life of this country.

Mr. Rees: In that case all that I put back to the right hon. Gentleman is that there may be right hon. and hon. Members who do not like the attitude that is always put forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey), but what she says in this House is a fact of life in Ulster that we have to face. It is a factor in the running of Northern Ireland that any Secretary of State has to accept—not just the presence of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, but the fact that there is this view in Northern Ireland. After all, before my time Members were elected to this House whose main claim to fame was that they never took up their seats. To be elected and not to turn up was sufficient to get one's place in the pantheon of Irish democrats.

Mr. Stratton Mills: If what the hon. Gentleman is arguing is taken to its logical conclusion—and I do not think that this is what he means—there is an argument for saying that there should be no representation for Northern Ireland in this House at all. We are saying that if there is to be representation it should be fair and adequate. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) professes to be a democrat. I am sure that she will not deny that basic point.

Mr. Rees: That may be so. But I heard the hon. Lady say that she wanted to be out of it and that that was what her people wanted. It is no good ignoring this fact in Ireland and carrying on as if what goes on there is simply the aberrations of a few terrorists shooting round the place, with the remainder of the minority accepting being part of the United Kingdom.

Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that because our part


of the United Kingdom contains what he describes as an "alien wedge" and because those people do not wish to be represented in this House, the vast majority of the people should be penalised by under-representation? That is an extraordinary argument.

Mr. McMaster: On the same point, even the minority who may want to be Republican nevertheless are prepared to go along with the majority wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and to work in a constitutional fashion. Does the hon. Gentleman say that they are not to be properly represented in the interim?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has come nearer my point. What is to be done in the interim is a different argument. I am considering the basic problem. If I used the phrase "alien wedge", it was taken from a different context——

Mr. Powell: Lord Radcliffe.

Mr Rees: This is becoming like the Assembly in NorthernIreland——

The Second Deputy-Chairman: Order.
How are they increased that trouble me
How many are they that rise against me.

Mr. Rees: It becomes even more like an Irish institution when we have incantations of that kind from the Chair.
It is a major factor which hon. Members from Northern Ireland must face. Logic is not enough. There is a changing situation in Northern Ireland. On the one hand we have the argument which has been heard in recent weeks that the Bill will not work and that it will break down. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have used the word "sabotage" which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West picked up the other day. Arguments have been put forward that this is permissible. All I say is that that is not the most stable of positions in which to talk about increased representation at Westminster.
In the interim situation it would be rather odd to alter the number of Members in the Westminster Parliament—not just from Northern Ireland but in total —in advance of a General Election. But

that is purely the interim argument, and I do not press it too far because it is not a major aspect of the argument.
The Government in their wisdom are attempting in a White Paper to balance the British dimension with an Irish dimension. That is what the White Paper is about. They are attempting to face the fact that there are people in Northern Ireland who want an Irish dimension. It is a very difficult task for the Government to carry out——

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman misinterpreted me. When I used the word "interim" I did not mean the period before 28th June. I meant the period between now and the realising of the aspirations of minority, if ever. It was shown clearly in the local government elections and in the plebiscite and I am sure it will be shown in the election on 28th June that it is a small minority who want to achieve a united Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that they should not be properly represented in this House?

Mr. Rees: I was conceding the numerical logic argument and saying that there may be something in it in the short run. I am trying to look at the long-term situation. I rest my point on the fact that Northern Ireland is not like other parts of the United Kingdom. Our job is to balance the British dimension and the Irish dimension, and we believe strongly that it is very much better to leave matters as they are with the 12 Westminster seats.
Let us consider the situation in the Government of Ulster. Somehow the hon. Member for Belfast, East must be reconciled with the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster in the Province. Those are the two extremes which must be reconciled. They will not be reconciled by telling the hon. Lady that she ought to be in support of extra representation in this Parliament.

Mrs. McAliskey: While those of us who believe fundamentally in a United Ireland are prepared to accept at this stage that we cannot have a decisive move towards a united Ireland, we will not accept a decisive move to take us into integration with Britain. That is the point that we make.

Mr. Rees: The argument that I have been trying to put forward has been put firmly by the hon. Lady from her side of the community in Northern Ireland. However, there must be a reconciliation between the two sides on this matter. I do not believe that that reconciliation will come about by talking about increased representation at Westminster when one is trying to get the Irish dimension under way.

Mr. Wilkinson: As the broad mass of Membership of the House of Commons is so unaware of the Republican point of view—the opinions of the minority in Northern Ireland—may I ask why it should be advantageous that that voice should be diminished in this Chamber by a smaller representation than the larger one being advocated?

Mr. Rees: If it were merely a matter of numerical logic there would he much in what the hon. Gentleman said. However, it is not a case of logic in that sense. I implore the hon. Member for Belfast, East, much as he may disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, to accept that it is our job now, and after the Assembly elections, to face the facts regarding who may be returned on that occasion. Ulster is a split society. The Government are endeavouring to legislate for that split society. Our view is that to have extra representation here would be wrong.

Mr. Whitelaw: In answering an important debate like this, in which many differing views have been expressed, I think that it would be better if I started by making one purely technical point, which should be on the record because it sets out the position as it is. I do not make it in a carping way. To accept the principle of a small matter like this would not really matter. The clause seeks the repeal of Section 19 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will find that that is already repealed in the schedule to the Bill.
If my hon. and gallant Friend asks how the 12 seats at Westminster are prescribed, the answer is that they are prescribed in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. That is the basis on which the 12 seats rest, and it is important to get that point on record.
7.0 p.m.
I concede that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and others who have spoken in the debate have put forward a strong argument. My right hon. Friend went back somewhat into history to Glad-stone's problems over the size of the representation at Westminster, and said that eventually there was no particular logic in the number that came out.
I think that deciding on a number is a difficult matter. I noticed that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South said that, on the whole, he would have preferred a Boundary Commission inquiry because of that difficulty.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and many others who were here when I first entered the House of Commons will agree that at that time there was a curious convention that Northern Ireland affairs were never discussed in this Chamber. I do not know from where that convention came, but it seemed to exist. In retrospect, I believe that that convention was a great mistake. The House of Commons has considerable responsibility for the troubles in Northern Ireland today. I have come to that clear conclusion about our position over the years. We should have been allowed to discuss these matters here. Subsequently we did. If we had discussed them earlier we may or may not have made the situation better. No one can prove either way. However, we did not discuss matters at a time when I believe we should have done so. Of that there can be no doubt. That is a personal view which does not impinge on the number of Members.

Mr. McMaster: My memory goes back 15 years. I recall discussions on many matters, including shipbuilding, the aircraft industry, and particularly unemployment as it affected Northern Ireland. These vital matters have always been debated in the House of Commons and we have taken an active part in them.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a fair point. However, the fundamental problems of Northern Ireland were not discussed. In retrospect, I think that it would have been better if they had been discussed. I do not necessarily accept that that changes the situation about the number of Members, but it is true.
I turn now to the problem which has fairly been raised about the number of Members today. This point was discussed on Second Reading. At that time I made clear the Government's position. It is obvious—I have not been able to check—that I must have used some arguments about further devolution later, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West cannot have sought to demolish an argument which he did not suspect I was going to use. I am not going to use an argument which he sought to demolish about further transfers of devolution later.
We must look at the numbers as prescribed and as we have left them on this occasion against the background of what is being proposed. We can argue one way or another about the powers of the new Assembly and, indeed, whether in some instances they are greater or lesser than those of the old Stormont. We must accept that the proposed new Assembly, with the powers initially to be transferred to it, would, even at that stage, certainly be different in kind from anything that any other part of the United Kingdom has at this time. No other part of the United Kingdom has an Assembly that can pass laws of any sort or kind. Therefore, the representation must be looked at against that background.
The Assembly would have considerable legislative powers if the Executive were formed and matters were transferred to it. If it succeeds, as time goes on more matters can be transferred to it. That does not necessarily increase my argument for sticking to 12 Members. It is a fact of life that the Assembly would have considerable powers transferred to it and could have more. That is something that other parts of the United Kingdom do not have. In comparing one part or another of the United Kingdom with the situation and representation in Northern Ireland the work of the Assembly must be taken into account. We cannot get away from that fact.
In that connection, perhaps I should take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) about what he called the Crowther Commission but which, since the death of Lord Crowther, has become the Kilbrandon Commission. It has yet to report. No one knows what it will say. but I know, and the House knows, that

its terms of reference are such that the report could touch upon many of the matters that have been covered in this debate.
If the report were to propose changes for other parts of the United Kingdom, representation would be bound to be one issue that would be involved thereafter. It could not be otherwise. But I am dealing with the present situation, which is that we are proposing for Northern Ireland an Assembly of a type that is not in existence in any other part of the United Kingdom, and to that extent we are entitled to say that exact comparisons between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are not valid.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend referred to the Kilbrandon Commission. Will he consider giving that commission an additional term of reference, namely, in the light of the powers contained in the Bill to consider what should be the parliamentary representation in this House for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is outside my competence to answer that question. The commission's terms of reference are within the province of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I cannot comment upon it.
I now come to the question of the work that the Assembly will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the proroguing of Stormont had meant a greatly increased workload for his hon. Friends and himself. I appreciate the point, but my hon. Friend went on to say that in the last year Stormont Members had somehow been bypassed and that the same thing would happen after the new Assembly had been elected, because people would take their cases up with the two or three Members at Westminster. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh made much the same point.
My hon. Friends and I at the Northern Ireland office are not able to confirm that as a fact. We have received endless representations and deputations and many letters from Stormont Members of Parliament during the last year, and I do not doubt that the same will happen with Members of the new Assembly.


Indeed, we have already received representations from various members of the new district councils.
There can be no doubt that representations have come to us through Stormont Members, and I do not think that people will bypass their new local representatives in the way that my hon. Friends have suggested. Once the Executive is set up, many matters will be transferred to the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland will make representations on those matters to the Assembly and its Members because that is where those issues will be considered.
It is suggested that the Secretary of State will have an all-pervasive position and therefore, inevitably, when a decision is required on an issue the matter will be raised at Westminster, even though responsibility for dealing with it will have been transferred to the new Assembly. That will not be so. The Executive will have authority to legislate. Unless it is on a matter of discrimination, or the issue impinges on a reserved matter, the Secretary of State will not be able to interfere in any way. The heads of the Departments in the Assembly will deal with those issues, and the people of Northern Ireland will have to deal direct with them and with the Assembly. If such matters came direct to the Secretary of State and his Ministers at Westminster, they would inevitably have to be referred back to the Executive and to the Assembly because Parliament at Westminster would have no power to deal with them. That is a fact of life which I must stress.
Having said that, I must go on to say that there are fair arguments for increased representation. However, I must equally say that there are strong arguments the other way. If we are setting up an Assembly with considerable devolved powers, it is right to stick to the representation that is laid down in the Bill, and I believe that the Government's decision to do that, based on the provision that the new Assembly will have considerable devolved powers, is right.
It is for that reason that we have made this provision in the Bill, and on this occasion I must disappoint my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend. I understand their feelings in this matter,

but I must tell them that I cannot accept the new clause and the arguments that have been advanced for it.

Captain Orr: As my right hon. Friend expected, we are deeply disappointed with his reply. We are even more disappointed that it was a reply without any argument in it. If one examines what my right hon. Friend said, one sees that he adduced no good reason for continuing this diminution.
My right hon. Friend began by talking about the convention of the House, and I think that we ought to spend a moment or two considering it. The reason why it was not possible to raise in this House issues which the House had devolved upon the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland was that under the rules of this House the Table could find no ministerial responsibility for them. My right hon. Friend is glad that the convention has come to an end and regrets that it did not end sooner. The reason for its having come to an end is that there is now ministerial responsibility in this House.
My right hon. Friend's argument underlines in the most cogent way the case that we are making. The real responsibility lies with this House of Commons, and the lack of magnanimity here will be noted and bitterly resented in Ulster. My right hon. Friend's reply underlines the fact that it is the Government's intention to treat Northern Ireland as if it were part of the United Kingdom. Could anything be more damaging to the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland than the mean-spiritedness of the House of Commons on this question of representation? We in Ulster have constantly been lectured and hectored about the need to compromise, yet when it comes to an important issue the House of Commons refuses to do so.
The most extraordinary argument of all was advanced by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) who said that because of the existence of an alien wedge—a group of people who did not wish to be represented—the rest of the community must suffer the disability of having its representation decreased. Could anyone imagine a more fantastic argument than that? I leave it to the common sense of any ordinary person


who looks at political life to realise the fallacy and the ridiculous nature of that argument.
In the light of that, could anyone imagine that we could do other than

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

EXCEPTED MATTERS

Mr. McMaster: I beg to move Amendment No.66, in page 32, line 22,

invite the Committee to divide in support of the new clause?

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 141.

Division No. 170.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Biggs-Davison, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawby, Ray
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Stanley McMaster and Mr. John Maginnis.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Soref, Harold



Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Murton, Oscar


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Harper, Joseph
Nott, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hayhoe, Barney
O'Malley, Brian


Benyon, W.
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Biffen, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Orme, Stanley


Blaker, Peter
Hornby, Richard
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Palmer, Arthur


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Percival, Ian


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunter, Adam
Raison, Timothy


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmond, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Buchan, Norman
James, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Channon, Paul
Janner, Greville
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cooper, A. E.
Kaufman, Gerald
Shersby, Michael


Cordle, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Silverman, Julius


Cormack, Patrick
Kerr, Russell
Simeons, Charles


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul




Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lipton, Marcus
Tebbit, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Ellis, Tom
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Tinn, James


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, R. N.
Tope, Graham


Faulds, Andrew
McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette
Torney, Tom


Fidler, Michael
Mackie, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. Sir Robin


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Michael
Madel, David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fortescue, Tim
Mather, Carol
Whitehead, Philip


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fox, Marcus
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Younger, Hn. George


Green, Alan
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Money, Ernie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Mr. Paul Hawkins and Mr. Michael Jopling.


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 26.

Following the last vote and the decision of the House not to increase the number of Northern Ireland Members, this amendment should be received by my right hon. Friend with great sym-


pathy. The schedule states that among the excepted matters—that is, the matters that will be transferred to this House—the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, county court judges, recorders, resident magistrates, justices of the peace and other judicial appointments shall be made only by this House. The effect of placing this list of appointments within Schedule 2 is that these matters will never be transferred to the new Executive in Northern Ireland.

At one time it was the convention in Northern Ireland that though judges of the Supreme Court were appointed by Westminister, it was customarily on the recommendation of the appropriate Minister in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I believe that this convention was abandoned about 15 or 20 years ago. But the appointment of other judges below the Supreme Court—county court judges, and so on—was always undertaken by the Northern Ireland Government.

If the Northern Ireland Executive is to have any real powers and is to enjoy the confidence of Parliament at Westminster, surely the appointment of county court judges, recorders, resident magistrates, and so on, may well be entrusted to the new Executive. If this is not to be the case I cannot see how my right hon. Friend can take the hard line that he has taken about increasing the representation at Westminister. He cannot have it both ways. Either he is setting up an effective Government in Northern Ireland, with a sufficient degree of devolution to warrant a limitation of representation at Westminster, or he is setting up something which has very much less power than that of the former Northern Ireland Government, and something that cannot even be trusted to appoint its own county court and minor judges.

My right hon. Friend should show that he has confidence in the new Executive. If he is not prepared to transfer now the power to appoint county court judges, recorders, resident magistrates, justice of the peace and so on to that Executive, at least that list should be included in the minimum reserved matters set out in Schedule 3, the matters which may in future be transferred, rather than in Schedule 2.

I share with many of my hon. Friends the hope that the Assembly will succeed,

but if that hope is to materialise my right hon. Friend must show his confidence in that Assembly. If he does not, it will be nothing more than a glorified county council. The whole set-up will be clearly more of a sham, a political expedient, than a proper and effective body.

It is because of that that my right hon. Friend should make a concession on this vital point. If the new Executive is to have proper parliamentary authority and power, it must have control over law and order. The appointment of these judges is a very important facet of law and order. Law and order are vital to the functions of Government. It is in the power to appoint judges and to suspend them that one shows one's confidence in an Executive.

I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter very seriously. In the appointment of judges, surely a local Executive is much better qualified to act as the appointing authority than some remote authority in London. I cannot see why one should argue that the appointment of county court judges and recorders, and even resident magistrates and justices of the peace, can be done only by the Secretary of State acting from Westminster.

7.30 p.m.

Surely, if one wants to compile a full list of persons prepared to act as justices of the peace—members of juvenile court panels, coroners, chief and other National Insurance commissioners, or the president and other members of the Land Tribunal—one requires to be resident in the area concerned. Only those who live there know the various members of the legal profession and others who are qualified to act. Only they can judge their merits properly.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Perhaps they know too much.

Mr. McMaster: Why are these powers taken away and left for ever in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Government at Westminster? What could be a more blatant token of lack of confidence in the integrity of the Executive or lack of sincerity by my right hon. Friend in setting up an effective Executive with true devolution of powers?
I press this amendment as strongly as I can upon my right hon. Friend, particularly in view of the decision that the Committee has just taken on the previous matter of representation of Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am not sure that I agree with all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). I shall not follow his argument, because I wish to deal with another matter that is allied to this subject and arises under paragraph 9 of the schedule.
Paragraph 67(a) of the White Paper states that
It is the view of the Government that all judicial appointments should be made by or on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, and that there should be a unified administration of the courts for which the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament.
Looking at paragraph 9 of the schedule, I am puzzled as to how this is brought about. Perhaps it is brought about by some other part of the Bill. But what is to be the position of the officers of the Supreme Court, exercising their judicial functions, the vice-president of the Value Added Tax Tribunal for Northern Ireland, Masters of the Enforcement of Judgments Office and Clerks of the Crown and Peace for Northern Ireland? What is to be the position about their appointments, and who is to be answerable for them?
Having regard to the terms of the White Paper, I assume that it is intended that they should be covered by the schedule. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will clarify this matter.

Captain Orr: I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) about these provisions. The 1920 Act made a distinction between the Supreme Court and other courts. That Act permanently reserved the appointment of members of the Supreme Court of Judicature to the Lord Chancellor. I presume that in the light of conditions that prevailed in those days it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
What appears to be happening now is that the appointments for all the lower courts and the various judicial and quasi-judicial appointments included in para-

graph 9, other than those for the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland, are by implication being reserved. That would be a most serious allegation if it were made. There may have been very wild elements in Northern Ireland in recent times but the fact that this matter is now permanently reserved in the excepted schedule rather than in Schedule 3 seems to indicate that Her Majesty's Government are giving credibility to the allegastions that have been made, and are saysing "We would not trust any Northern Ireland Executive with authority in these matters and, therefore, we would not trust in the future the persons in judicial or semi-judicial appointments."
There is no great point of principle involved in this; it is simply a matter of confidence. I should like to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about the justification for the absolute, permanent exclusion of these matters from those which can be transferred before we decide what we should do about the amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I shall be extremely brief. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will appreciate the force of the argument from our side. Of course, we cannot consider matters like this in abstraction. We have to have regard to the political realities in Northern Ireland. These appointments and removals are, of course, sensitive matters. I can understand why my right hon. Friend does not want to be committed to the delegation of these appointments and removals. But I cannot understand why, in that event, they were not placed in the category of minimum reserved instead of in the excepted schedule, which means, presumably, that unless there is amending legislation they will always remain outside the influence of those in Northern Ireland.
I think that my right hon. Friend knows the extent of humiliation, distress and outrage which has been occasioned among many people in Northern Ireland by the abolition of the governorship—which seems to be coming about—the Senate and the House of Commons in Northern Ireland, and now by the decision of the House after the last Division. It might go some way to assuage some of those feelings if my right hon. Friend were to be accommodating on this amendment.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said in moving the amendment. On reflection, he would probably not feel that a decision on this particular matter was at the basis of whether the Assembly was to be a worthwhile body or, as he put it, a mere county council.
Perhaps I should reply at once to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). There is no suggestion in our proposals that the judicature in Northern Ireland is not to be trusted. That would be an unfair and unjustified accusation. In view of what has been happening in this sphere at a difficult time with the many pressures that have been applied, it is necessary to make that perfectly clear.
As my hon. and gallant Friend said, most important appointments in the past have been those of judges to the Supreme Court, and these appointments were reserved for the Lord Chancellor. The White Paper and the schedule provide that the Lord Chancellor should also be responsible for the appointment of county court judges, magistrates, coroners, and limited other appointments of a quasi-judicial nature. The question is why it is necessary to add these to the judges of the Supreme Court who were his responsibility before.
This is not a matter of principles; it is a matter of convenience. The Lord Chancellor has the opportunity of discussing these matters with the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland and is in the special position of making judicial appointments because of the nature of his office. Therefore, to put all the judicial appointments together under his responsibility is a logical and reasonable way to proceed. I do not see it in any way as a matter of principle.
In dealing with the next point I hope I shall be able to go some way to satisfying my hon. Friends. The Bill draws a careful distinction between the appointment of these various office holders, which are excepted matters, and the functions and rôles which they are to discharge. These are reserved matters, and were specifically made so. That shows something of the trust that exists here. They were made reserved matters because it

would be possible, and might be necessary, to make changes when this House could not find the time to deal with them. Because they are reserved matters the Assembly could, with the consent of the Secretary of State, legislate about the courts. The Assembly in this respect would in some ways have a freedom to legislate wider than that given to the Parliament of Northern Ireland under the 1920 Act. That Parliament had no authority to legislate on matters relating to the Supreme Court. If an appropriate case should arise the Northern Ireland Assembly would be able to legislate.
This shows the basis of the trust that is placed by the Government. We felt that the appointments were one thing and that the actual functions and rôles of the courts were something else. That we have put them in the reserved matters shows that the Assembly has a considerable part to play. Perhaps in order to save time I could answer my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on his point, which I think should arise more on the "stand part" debate on the schedule.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to meet me half way? He has pointed out that certain of the matters related to this subject have been placed in the reserved list in Schedule 3. He will know that the justices of the peace who are included in this, and certain of the other so-called quasi-judicial appointments, are not judicial appointments in Northern Ireland because they have no judicial function there. Will my right hon. Friend consider on Report introducing an amendment transferring them to the reserved list, thereby supplementing the matters that he has already said are in the reserved list, matters which may subsequently be transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think the Bill as it stands is probably the best way to proceed, but I am certainly prepared to look at what my hon. Friend has said. I still believe that there is an advantage in the Lord Chancellor's being responsible for all the appointments.
7.45 p.m.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North. Paragraph 9 covers only the


appointment and removal of judges and holders of quasi-judicial office. It does not cover any other matters dealing with the courts—the clerk of the court, the clerk of the Crown and other officials. They are covered by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3. Those are reserved matters, while the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of the judges is an excepted matter. The people to whom my hon. Friend referred are covered by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The point which I was making was that officers of the Supreme Court exercise certain judicial functions in relation to registrars. Similarly the Vice-President of the Value Added Tax Tribunal and the Master of the Enforcement of Judgment Office exercise a form of judicial function, as do the Clerks of the Crown and Peace. All these individuals exercise a form of judicial function. I will not press for an answer now, but I hope that the Secretary of State will look into the matter and write to me about it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must confess that if my hon. Friend had pressed the matter I would not have been able to give the answer at present. I shall seek to answer him in writing.

Captain Orr: Once again my right hon. Friend has been helpful. I think he would agree that the amendment gave him an opportunity of expressing confidence in the judiciary at all levels in Northern Ireland, and for this purpose it has been valuable. In the light of the other Bills which we shall be discussing on Monday and Tuesday it is important to have on the record that this House has confidence in the judiciary in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to make clear the difference, on which I was slightly confused, between paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 and the paragraph with which we are now dealing. He has made it clear that he is concerned solely with reserving the question of appointment. I agree with him that there is no great point of principle, provided that we understand the reason behind this. Accordingly, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) if he will be good enough to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McMaster: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his helpful advice. The Secretary of State has given an undertaking that he will consider the amendment which we suggest, particularly regarding Justices of the Peace and quasi-judicial appointments. I accept what he says about county court judges being appointed by the Lord Chancellor and see force in that argument. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 32, line 26, leave out paragraph 10.
The subject is close to the point of the amendment we have just discussed, but it differs slightly in that it is in a separate paragraph of the schedule, and, therefore, must be different in its nature.
We are dealing with two new offices, the Director and the deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. It was right to remove the power relating to public prosecutions from the hands of a political officer, the Northern Ireland Attorney-General.
I never saw any objection to the setting up of the post of Director of Public Prosecutions in Ulster. No one would wish to return to the old system. But why is it considered necessary, again permanently, to reserve the appointment to the office? Is it because the office of Attorney-General of Northern Ireland is not to be devolved in any circumstances, or is it for some other reason? It would he useful to have an explanation from my right hon. Friend before we decide whether it should remain in the schedule.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have discussed the rather broader issues in my answer to the previous amendment. Under Clause 34 the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the deputy Director is placed in the hands of the Attorney-General. That is how it comes to be an excepted matter.

Captain Orr: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 32, line 29, leave out paragraph 11.
The amendment raises a point of more substance than the previous amendment, and to some extent a point of principle. It is not invariable, when one sets up a subordinate legislature of some kind, to leave to it the question of its franchise, the running of its elections and its control over those authorities that are subordinate to it. But if, as the Government seek to argue, we are setting up an Assembly with considerable powers, with a degree of independence, which was the argument used against us when we were considering the question of representation in this House, it seems very strange to deny to that subordinate Assembly authority over those assemblies that are subordinate to it.
Under the Act of 1920 the Parliament of Northern Ireland had control over its own franchise, over the arrangement and size of its constituencies, over all the rules governing its own local authorities. The fact that that power is in the schedule means that never, so long as the measure lasts as an Act, will the new Assembly have any say in these matters.
I do not understand why these substantial powers should be permanently reserved. I could understand it if the Secretary of State were saying that they should be reserved for the interim period, while the Assembly is being set up, because the local authorities have been set up before the Assembly and the relationship between the Assembly and the local authorities has not yet been fully worked out and matured. There would then be a good case for reserving these matters, perhaps for some time.
But let us take one particular matter of substance. The local authorities—the district councils—have just been elected. They were elected on the single transferable vote system. No authority of any kind, no representative body in Northern Ireland, had any say, except through the representatives in this House, diminished in size as we are, in the setting up of that local government franchise. The people of Northern Ireland feel that, whatever be the merits of the single transferable vote system, it has been imposed upon them without their having the right to consider it and without their consent.
This is a matter over which, ultimately, the Assembly should have some control. It should have control over the system under which elections will take place. It might very well be that the people of Northern Ireland felt that they wanted to do away with the system. At some time in the future they might prefer a different type of proportional representation. Some hon. Members would not concede that the single transferable vote system is proportional representation at all. Their argument might prevail in Ulster at some time.
But at present, even if all the elected representatives in the Assembly were agreed on the system they would have no authority to alter it, and never will. It seems to me very strange that it is not a power which could eventually be devolved on the Assembly. I see no great point of principle to prevent its being devolved on the Assembly, unless the Government are saying "We shall never trust the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the Assembly with these powers". Unless the Government are saying that they never could be trusted to look after their own franchise, to look after their own local government boundaries, there is no other good argument for not removing these powers from the schedule and putting them in Schedule 3.

Mr. Molyneaux: We start in the rather curious position of being at this moment in control of elections in Northern Ireland both for the Assembly and for the local government bodies. But, as we saw earlier today, we are not discharging that function through an Act of this Parliament or any instrument designed here. We are operating by a form of remote control, an Act passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland—the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962—which differs in many significant ways from the Representation of the People Act.
Is it proposed that in future the machinery of the Stormont Act should be continued to be used for elections to the Assembly and to local councils? Although paragraph 11 would obviously prevent the Assembly from modifying the Bill to take account of changing circumstances, is it also proposed that modifications to the Stormont Act should


be made in this Parliament of the United Kingdom, whose thinking is geared to a very different Act, the Representation of the People Act? Would it have the expert knowledge to tackle in detail the changes and the ramifications of the Stormont Act?
It seems that the removal from the Assembly of powers over elections to the local councils is in many ways undesirable. The success or failure of the scheme of reorganisation of local government, which has nothing to do with any of the present controversy and nothing to do with the so-called reform programme which was set in train as far back as 1967, depends on the close working and interlocking of representation at various levels.
It will be difficult to give a convincing impression or demonstration of a unified structure if the machinery of elections is to be controlled from Westminster, from far off, with patchy results.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

8.0 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): The amendment, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has said, would have the effect—as would the other amendments that we have discussed relating to the schedule—of removing the matters to which reference was made—that is, in this case, matters governing elections and the franchise—from the excepted category and putting them into the reserved category. The proposals in the Bill are governed by the clear statement in paragraph 67(c) of the White Paper that
ministerial responsibility for all matters consnected with elections or the franchise should be reserved to the Secretary of State.
That is the quarrel that my hon. and gallant Friend is raising. He said that it was a matter of principle. It can he disputed, but that paragaph is the starting point of the Government's thinking. Our words in the White Paper were that
The Government believes that as a matter of principle, Ministers should be answerable to Parliament for arrangements for central and local government elections in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The placing of elections and the franchise in the excepted category achieves precisely that result. Responsibility will rest inalienably with United Kingdom Ministers.
It could be argued that the placing of electoral matters in the excepted category goes against the principle of flexibility to which my right hon. Friend has referred throughout our deliberations and will invite inflexibility. It is true that if the Bill is passed only the United Kingdom Parliament can legislate and change the law on elections in Northern Ireland. Mitigation of the proposition is that under Clause 29 my right hon. Friend is empowered to make orders or provision is made for orders in council by Her Majesty to amend the law in relation to the Assembly. Clause 38 relates to local government elections.
It will not be necessary to ask this Parliament to pass a completely fresh Act each time an amendment is required to Northern Ireland electoral law. It is important to make the point that previous legislation governing the franchise in Northern Ireland——

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend is making an important point. He is saying, in effect, that Northern Ireland electoral law, as regards both the Assembly and local government, could be dealt with by order in council in the House, even if it were substantial. Is that right?

Mr. Howell: I appreciate the importance of this matter. We are on ground similar to that which we have already covered. If it were a minor matter of adjustment required for the good working of electoral operations in Northern Ireland it could be dealt with by Order in Council. If it were a major matter there would be unavoidable pressure on my right hon. Friend to deal with it in the proper way by a full Bill before the House. The system that I am describing would avoid the situation in which a minor matter would never be attended to because of the proposition that it would be too complicated to bring a Bill before the House.
Before my hon. and gallant Friend intervened I had mentioned former legislation governing elections in Northern Ireland. The Bill proposes no change in the substance of that legislation. Obviously, there will


be changes in some of the details of that legislation. It is being taken out of the hands of the Assembly. My hon. and gallant Friend said that no one in Northern Ireland had had a say about the recent local government elections. If he meant that nobody in Northern Ireland had the power to make changes this way or that he would be right. That was implicit in the situation created by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act.
It would be wrong to say that no one had a say. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that a wide range of people had a strong advisory say of a substantial kind in the making of the provisions and in the arrangements for the local government elections. The Advisory Commission was able to advise my right hon. Friend on this and other subjects. A glimpse of my right hon. Friend's almost daily schedule of taking advice and soundings on this and many other matters would make it impossible to say that no one in Northern Ireland had a say. On the contrary, it might be thought that practically everyone in Northern Ireland had had a say on how the arrangements should be worked out.
Less for those reasons than for the reasons set out in the White Paper, from which I quoted, I fear that I cannot meet my hon. and gallant Friend in his proposition. I understand the point that he advances on principle, but it conflicts with the principle laid down in the White Paper that Ministers should be answerable to this Parliament for central and local government elections. I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his careful reply. As he said, there is a point of principle between us, and I do not think that further debate will result in either of us being able to convince the other. When I said that the people of Northern Ireland had not had a say in the question whether they should have proportional representation I was using the phrase in the parliamentary and representative sense. They did not have a say except through their representatives in this House. They were not invited to have a say in their Parliament, because it was prorogued.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Advisory Commission, but that was a body nominated by the Secretary of State. It was not a body which had the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, because they had not elected it to represent them. That is the sense in which I used the phrase that the people of Northern Ireland had not had a say. I am grateful to my lion. Friend for his careful reply, but the point of principle remains between us. Although I shall not withdraw my amendment it is possible that my hon. Friends may not feel it necessary to go into the Lobby on the question.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. McMaster: The items that have been included in the schedule leave me with the gravest anxiety about the effectiveness of the Executive that is to be set up in Northern Ireland. The matters included in the list to be dealt with by Westminster are so detailed and varied that they lead one to wonder whether it is intended to have proper devolution of power to Northern Ireland.
What is the intention of the Government in relation to the schedule? Where the matters contained in it require legislation, will it be done by order, as Northern Ireland matters have been dealt with in the past 16 months, or will there be Bills, which may be amended? If they are to be dealt with simply by orders that cannot be amended, the effect of the schedule will be to produce an unsatisfactory situation for the future Government of Northern Ireland.
Matters such as coinage, legal tender and bank notes, National Savings, nationality, immigration and aliens are all to be dealt with in the House of Commons. But nationality, immigration and aliens are of particular concern to Northern Ireland.
The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is the only land border between the United Kingdom and a foreign country. Persons from that country may seek to move into Northern Ireland in order to benefit from the better social security provisions, job opportunities and better wages. Such persons represent a threat to the North of Ireland


in the situation that we all know to exist there. If these matters cannot be covered and dealt with by the Government of Northern Ireland, can they be properly dalt with here, at Westminster?
Another matter that causes me concern is paragraph 14 of Schedule 2. It sets out as being excepted,
Special powers and other provisions for dealing with terrorism or subversion.
But Schedule 3(21) states as being among the reserved matters—matters that may sometimes be transferred to the Executive—
The Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926 or any enactment for similar purposes.
Thus, paragraph 14 of this Schedule and paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 conflict. How would it be possible, in the future, to transfer the matters covered by paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Executive in Northern Ireland while, under paragraph 14 of Schedule 2, special powers and other provisions for dealing with terrorism and subversion are reserved ad infinitum to Westminster? It is because of this and other matters to which I referred earlier that I have strong reservations about accepting the items listed in Schedule 2.

8.15 p.m.

Captain Orr: Before we part with the Schedule I want to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has said about the nature and extent of these permanent reservations. I had intended to deal with the point about paragraph 14 that he raised. At first sight, I took the same view as he does—that there was a conflict between paragraph 14 of this Schedule and paragraph 21 of Schedule 3. It is a curious situation.
Paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 refers to:
The Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926 or any enactment for similar purposes.
There would have been a conflict here had it not been for the fact that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, with which we are dealing upstairs in Committee ad infinitum, repeals that section of the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926 which deals with special powers. We are thus left without the conflict and with the position that

special powers are permanently reserved. There is no conflict now between paragraph 14 of this Schedule and paragraph 21 of Schedule 3.

Mr. McMaster: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I was unaware of that development. It has come as a surprise. One cannot see, therefore, the reason for paragraph 21 of Schedule 3.

Captain Orr: I imagine that the reason is that the Emergency Powers Act 1926, except for the section being repealed—if the Bill in Committee upstairs ever sees the statute book—deals not with special powers in the sense of the Special Powers Act but with the ability that formerly rested upon the Government of Northern Ireland to deal with an emergency in the sense of, for example, an electricity strike or a declaration of emergency, as we understand it in the House of Commons. It is a slightly different power. However, the Act did have a section dealing with special powers and if the Bill upstairs succeeds that section will disappear.
I do not know that I have anything particular to add or to ask, except, of course, that once again we say that, in a sense, this Schedule is a considerable derogation from the extent of the devolution that the old Stormont Parliament had. The only exception is paragraph 3. The 1920 Act fully reserved all matters dealing with international relations. We made our view plain when dealing with Clause 12 in relation to the EEC and the Republic of Ireland, and I do not think it necessary to express that view in the Division Lobby again, now.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): In considering Schedule 2, one has to look at the Bill as a whole, because its framework is based on a definition of those matters which are excepted and which will always be for this Parliament. In addition, we have reserved matters and transferred matters. Schedule 2 lists the excepted matters, the responsibility for which can never be devolved upon the Northern Ireland institutions, and on which, by virtue of Clause 5, the Assembly may never pass legislation. The matters listed in Schedule 2 are all of national importance which can only he


dealt with on the basis of the United Kingdom as a whole.
If one looks back to the Northern Ireland institutions under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Section 4 of that Act, as the House well knows, contains a lengthy list of matters on which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has no authority to legislate. There are other provisions in that Act which take certain matters outside the competence of the Northern Ireland institutions. We have preserved this framework in the Bill now before the House, and the list in Schedule 2 sets out the matters within the excepted category.
My hon. Friends have raised one or two important points. I was very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) talked about having the gravest anxieties. I hope he was exaggerating a little. I do not think he need have that anxiety, and I am sorry he had to say that, for eventually the Assembly will have great power. What is in this schedule has not altered that very much.
My hon. Friend raised a point about matters to be dealt with in the schedule when they come to this House. Westminster will legislate in the normal way by introducing a Bill if it is to deal with excepted matters, so obviously there will be the proper amount of time to deal with those matters in the normal way.
Then my hon. Friend raised the question—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) did so as well—of the seeming clash between Schedule 2(14) and Schedule 3(21). I do not think they clash at all. Schedule 2 deals with the Special Powers Act.

Captain Orr: I said they did not.

Mr. Mills: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend. As I say, there is no clash really because Schedule 2 deals with the Special Powers Act and paragraph 21 in Schedule 3 deals with civil emergencies, such as floods and strikes. I think that clears up two or three of the points that were made.
With any list one can argue whether certain matters should be in or out. It is a question of judgment, and the Government have judged it in this way. I believe we have struck the right

balance between Schedule 2 and Schedule 3, and, therefore, I commend the schedule to the House.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend spoke of excepted matters as matters which would never be the subject of delegation to Northern Ireland institutions. A great statesman once said that "never" is a word that should never be used in politics. I presume my hon. Friend meant that they would never be transferred without further legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

MINIMUM RESERVED MATTERS ON APPOINTED DAY

Question proposed: That this schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Captain Orr: Before we leave this schedule I think it important that we welcome one particular thing within it, and that is paragraph 3, which says:
Without prejudice to paragraphs 4 and 5 below, the maintenance of public order, including the conferring of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities for that purpose on constables, members of the armed forces of the Crown and other persons, but not any matter within paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
It could be argued that there might be a slight area of conflict between these two because some of the powers which are now conferred upon constables and members of the armed forces of the Crown derive from the existing Special Powers Act and will in the future derive from tthe Emergency Powers Act, which we are dealing with upstairs. We welcome the possibility that the whole question of the maintenance of public order—subject, of course, to the success of Section 2 of the Act, subject to anything being transferred at all—may be transferred.
It is interesting to note a slight difference in the treatment of these matters as between now and 1920. In 1920 we had a very similar situation in Ulster, there were a high degree of violence, really bitter and intense struggles, murder and bloodshed. Perhaps not on quite the same scale but in essence, the same kind of thing was going on in 1920. Yet in


the Act of 1920 brought in by a Liberal Prime Minister, an actual term of reservation of these matters was put in the legislation. Section 9 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 says:
The Royal Irish Constabulary"—
which eventually become the Royal Ulster Constabulary—
and the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the management and control of those forces and the administration of the Acts relating thereto, including … shall be reserved matters until such date, not being later than the expiration of three years after the appointed day, as His Majesty in Council may determine … ".
So even in those exceedingly difficult and dangerous times it was possible for a Liberal Government to say they would transfer those powers not later than three years after and it was carried out under the Act.
It is interesting to put on record that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the A Special Constabulary, the B Special Constabulary and the C Special Constabulary—because there were three bodies in those days—were the creation of a Liberal Government and a Liberal Prime Minister.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A coalition Government.

Captain Orr: Well, it was a Liberal Prime Minister. They were the creation of the Government of the day in 1920, and it was thought possible then to put a term to the devolution of those powers and the handing over of those splendid forces to the Parliament of Northern Ireland which was then being set up.
Possibly, had one moved an amendment to say that these minimum reserved matters should only be reserved for a maximum of three years, my right hon. Friend would have found a whole series of arguments, convincing or otherwise, why his hands should not be tied to any specific period.
The point I had intended to raise on paragraph 21 has already been dealt with, and I am content, therefore, that this schedule should stand part of the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: I should like to ask the same question with respect to Schedule 3 as I asked with respect to Schedule 2—namely, whether my hon. Friend can tell me how the matters set

out in Schedule 3 will be dealt with by this House. Are they to be dealt with, where they require legislation, by ordinary Bills which can be amended in this House, or are they to be dealt with by orders? That is the first point I am uncertain about.
I fail to see why all the minor matters set out in Schedule 3 cannot be transferred to the Executive in Northern Ireland. It surely casts doubt on the good will of Her Majesty's Government that these matters should be reserved for any length of time to the Westminster Parliament. The schedule mentions such things as trade, navigation, inland waterways, civil aviation, postal services, wireless telegraphy, trade marks, Trustee Savings Banks, even civil defence. It is surely a supreme mark of the lack of confidence on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the Assembly, about to be elected, and the lack of confidence in the Executive, which must first be approved by the Secretary of State, that all these matters must be dealt with by the Westminster Government.
There are certain detailed matters which are vague. We have already referred to paragraph 21 dealing with emergency powers. In paragraph 2 of the schedule we find a double negative. Perhaps my hon. Friend can state what is intended by this. It says that among the minimum reserved matters are:
All matters, other than those specified in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to this Act, relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, county courts, courts of summary jurisdiction (including magistrates' courts and juvenile courts) and coroners, including procedure, evidence, appeals, juries costs and legal aid.
All these are presumably to be excepted matters held for ever by the imperial Parliament. The paragraph goes on:
but not
(a) bankruptcy, insolvency, the winding-up of corporate and unincorporated bodies or the making of arrangements or compositions with creditors.
Does this mean that all matters other than those specified affecting county courts and the appointment of judges, and bankruptcy, insolvency and the other matters to which I have referred, including the regulation of the profession of solicitors, which are set out in Schedule 3(2)(b), are reserved matters? What is the effect of the double negative?
Will my hon. Friend deal with paragraph 8 dealing with trade with any place outside the United Kingdom? Why is this a reserved matter? Surely the new Assembly and the Executive will have power to deal with its own external trade. If it is not intended to give it this power at once perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me why.
Generally speaking, I am worried about the width of these exceptions and the number of items included. I do not think it is designed to engender any confidence in the new Assembly. Its effect will be felt particularly by those who give up their time to serve in the new Assembly. This reflects on the Stormont Parliament because in so far as these items are included in the list it must mean that Her Majesty's Government had no confidence in the way they were administered by Stormont.
As a result of years of Republican propaganda, particularly in the last three or four years, there has been too much unjustified criticism of the previous Stormont Government. That Government worked for 50 years to improve conditions in Northern Ireland. If it had not been for the IRA campaign of terrorism and violence in the past three years we in Northern Ireland would have been proud of the way in which not only trade and housing but other matters had been administered by the Stormont Government. We had standards in Northern Ireland which were among the best in the United Kingdom. To take such things as are set out in the schedule away from the new Executive reflects in a most unjustified manner on the way in which Stormont performed its functions.

Mr. Molyneaux: There are some words in paragraph 3 that I find puzzling, about the maintenance of public order. I cannot understand what meaning the words can have. What are the instruments to be used, since paragraph 3 is
Without prejudice to paragraphs 4 and 5 below"?
What form of legislation could the Assembly possibly pass to deal with these matters? I wonder whether my hon. Friend can give an example of the kind of legislation that might be suggested.

We should probably all agree that this paragraph requires a great deal of clarification and far better definition.
Then, in paragraph 4, we have a reference to
(d) the treatment of offenders (including children and young persons, and mental health patients, involved in crime)".
It may be possible to devolve many of these powers back to Northern Ireland at some time in the future, but I regret very much that that paragraph 4(d) should appear in the schedule, because under the Northern Ireland Mental Health Act the welfare of mental health patients in Northern Ireland is far in advance of anything in existence elsewhere in Great Britain. Their treatment is more closely linked to the Ministry of Health and to the social services, with the new health boards proposed to be brought in before 1st October.
How will it be possible, for example, to manage the one security unit, Muckamore Abbey, to which patients are referred from the courts? Will that be treated in isolation from the rest, or will it be under one of the new health boards?
Bearing in mind that the treatment of our mental health patients in Northern Ireland—whether they are offenders or not—is far in advance of anything yet seen in the rest of the United Kingdom, I should like to be assured that this temporary disruption will not do lasting damage.

Mr. Maginnis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) I rise to seek clarification. My hon. Friend was rather confused by some of the things in this schedule and he referred particularly to paragraphs 3 and 4. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to paragraph 5:
The establishment, organisation and control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of any other police force … ".
This gives rise to doubts whether the RUC will continue, and as we have listened to an assurance given today that there will be no police force other than the Royal Ulster Constabulary I ask my hon. Friend to tell us why this provision is contained in paragraph 5.

Mr. David Howell: I shall resist the temptation to follow my hon. and gallant


Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) into Irish history. He suspected that if he had moved an amendment suggesting a three-year limit on the maintenance of matters concerning law and order as reserved powers my right hon. Friend would have produced a great many arguments to show why he did not want to be tied in that way. My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend would have done that and the answers would have been extremely sound. I will not burden the Committee with them, as my hon. and gallant Friend has been kind enough not to put forward such an amendment.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Mr. McMaster), Schedule 3 matters will be dealt with either in Bills passing through the House of Commons in the normal way or by legislative procedures and legislation in the Assembly, subject to the procedures and controls set out in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. That philosophy applies to the whole of Schedule 3. It is possible for the Assembly to legislate in these reserved areas subject to the provisions of Clauses 4, 5 and 6. It is hoped that in a number of important areas that is what will happen. This will give the Assembly the opportunity to deal with legislation in many of these areas.

Mr. McMaster: If there is to be legislation in the Assembly on these matters, will they be under the control of the Assembly or the Executive? Secondly, will members of the Executive be able to answer questions on matters arising from that legislation?

Mr. Howell: Certainly they will be able to answer questions where the legislation has gone through the approved procedures both in the Assembly and in relation to my right hon. Friend and—if it should arise—in relation to the House of Commons. I do not think that there is any difficulty about that.
As for the question whether the power to legislate goes with the power to control, the answer is governed by whether the matter is administratively transferred or remains for administrative and statutory purposes under the control of my right hon. Friend. One can think of many items that stretch over the trans-

ferred areas—or what, we hope, will be the transferred areas after the first devolution order—and the reserved areas. Those matters are precisely the ones that it is sensible for the Assembly rather than the House of Commons to legislate on.

Mr. McMaster: How will the matters be transferred? Will there be an Act of Transfer that will be debated in the House of Commons, or will they be transferred by the Secretary of State administratively, without there being any statement to the House of Commons?

Mr. Howell: Clause 3 sets out exactly how matters will be transferred after the first devolution order.
I am sorry that the meaning of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 is not clear to my hon. Friend. It is clear that the matters specified in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature, and so on, remain excepted matters. The matters included in paragraphs 2(a) and(b) of Schedule 3—bankruptcy, insolvency, the winding up of corporate and unincorporated bodies, and so on—and the regulation of the profession of solicitors—are in neither of the two schedules and properly fall within the area to be transferred. If that was not clear before, I hope that it is now.
I turn to the subject of trade. Discussions on trade, trade policy and legislation governing trade are obviously three different matters. It is very much to be hoped that the Assembly, as did the previous Stormont Parliament, will concern itself with discussions about trade, with trade promotion and with involving the Ministry of Commerce—with which I have the honour to be concerned—in active efforts to further overseas trade and to attract overseas investment to Northern Ireland. That will go on as before. No legislation governing external trade—that is, trade outside the United Kingdom—was included in the 1920 Act, as I understand it. Therefore, it does not appear in the matters to be transferred in the schedule.
A distinction must be made between the discussion of matters affecting commerce and trade, the promotion of commercial and trade activities and, possibly, the passing of a variety of laws governing internal trade and trade within Northern Ireland, and legislative matters


affecting trade overseas which were never within the competence of the Stormont Parliament and are not now, under the Bill, to be placed within the competence of the Assembly.
The proposition that the continuation of this arrangement reflects no confidence in the ability of Northern Ireland to carry on trade and commerce is quite bizarre. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East believes it himself. He knows that, confidence or no, the very statistics of performance in Northern Ireland command confidence in themselves, so good has been the trade and commercial effort of Northern Ireland to ride out the appalling difficulties there and to register quite remarkable successes in industrial growth, manufacturing production, and commerce generally. There is no question of there being no confidence in these areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked about the meaning of the words
the maintenance of public order
in paragraph 3. They refer to processions, public events, fetes, shows, and so on—situations where regulations would have to be made governing the way in which processions went, and that kind of thing.
My hon. Friend also mentioned paragraph 4(b), dealing with the treatment of offenders. This really means prisons. Again we hope that questions of mental health, child health, and the health of others involved in crime are questions with which the Assembly will be concerned. Where it wished to pass legislation taking it into this reserved area in Schedule 3 it is to be honed that it would proceed to do so, subject always to the provisions set out in Clauses 3 to 6.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am concerned mainly with the category of mental health patients. The Minister made an unfortunate slip when he said that this provision dealt mainly with prisons. These patients are not treated in anything approaching prison conditions. They are in most enlightened conditions. In my opinion it is a mistake to include them in this provision.

Mr. Howell: I am the last to say that I do not make slips, but I did not make one in this case. I was referring mainly to prisons when I spoke of the treatment of offenders. The category of mental health patients involved in crime cannot be covered by the word "prisons". Nevertheless, it takes us into crime and crime control. For the time being, therefore, it is a category considered appropriate to be included in the schedule. How long it will be appropriate is a matter for decision and debate. I note my hon. Friend's point, and no doubt it will be raised again as we debate there matters in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) asked about the sinister words—he did not say "sinister", but I think he felt that they were sinister—"any other police force". To remove any doubt, I assure him that there is no ulterior or hidden meaning in those four words. It is a reference to organisations such as the Belfast harbour police. For example, there might be a need for another police force governing a particular commercial area, such as Belfast. This happens in all countries, in a variety of ways. Regulations governing such forces are necessary and changes in those regulations might be required in future.
As for the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend, I hope that he was here at Question Time today when my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked me about rumours that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was in some way to be undermined. I asserted as firmly as I could that such rumours had no foundation whatsoever. Therefore, nor have any doubts in my hon. Friend's mind. I hope that my words have removed any doubts that he may have had.
I think that those were the main points about the schedule. I hope that I have fully met the points that have been raised. I recommend that this be the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

FORM OF OATH OR AFFIRMATION UNDER SECTION 8

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 34, line 30,


leave out from 'will' to end of line 35 and insert:
'serve Her Majesty the Queen in the conscious discharge of my duties under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
On Second Reading I described the oath proposed in Schedule 4 as miserable and emasculate. I do not withdraw that epithet tonight. Better impose no oath than an oath in such terms; better drop it and rely on the Official Secrets Act.
The oath of allegiance, which is taken willingly and, for the most part, proudly at that Table, and formerly at Stormont, has proved no impediment to the seating of an elected Member who may seek, despite the memory of Cromwell, the eventual replacement of the monarchy by a republic. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) has been with us for a while today, and her hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) has also been known to be present here.
The oath to which I have referred is taken by a Member in taking his seat in a new Parliament. He takes it, whether or no he has sworn or affirmed in an earlier House of Commons, I presume, as binding in that period and for the purposes of his parliamentary service. I imagine that it was in that spirit that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster took the oath.
Therefore, it is not only offensive to my hon. Friends and myself but unnecessary to remove the Head of State from the oath to be taken by the Executive of a Province which, under Clause 1—which we have added to the Bill—remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom.
I am not wedded to the form of oath that I have tabled in the amendment. Nevertheless, I chose my words with some care, and I will read the form which would be in the schedule if, as I hope, we can amend it:
I swear by Almightly God [or affirm] that will serve Her Majesty the Queen in the conscientious discharge of my duties under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
Those words indicate that the profession of loyalty made by members of the Executive would relate to the discharge of their duties as members of the Executive, and what is wrong with that?
What is meant by
the laws of Northern Ireland
in the schedule as drafted? Does the term "laws" extend in this context to the monarchy? If so, why pander to mental reservations through ambiguity? If not, why not let us be faithful to our allegiance and true to ourselves?

Mr. Maginnis: I support the amendment, but I should like to go even further and scrap all that appears in Schedule 4 and insert in its place the oath that we take at the Table when we take our seats in this House of Commons. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of the oath:
I … swear that I will he faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors".
It seems to me that if someone is appointed to the Executive of Northern Ireland he should, as a matter of principle, be expected to carry out his duties on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. As the legislation to be passed in future by the Assembly will have the force of law and will be ratified by the Queen in Council, it seems odd that the Bill should ask members selected to be on the Executive of the Assembly to take this watered-down oath.
Members of the Assembly do not take any oath at all—I am not worried about that because it is not a Parliament—but those who are selected to the Executive bear a heavy responsibility for the day-to-day running of the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the legislation enacted by that Assembly will have the force of law and will receive the Royal Assent.
The loyal citizens of Northern Ireland look upon an oath with great respect. I remember when I was a young constable prosecuting in a court of law a person who was asked to go into the witness box. He seemed rather dilatory about taking the oath, and he was asked whether he understood the meaning of it. To me, the oath is like entering into the state of matrimony; it is not to be entered into lightly or wantonly.
I think that my hon. Friend hit the nail on the head. The previous oath did not prevent anyone from taking his seat in the former Stormont, and it has not prevented anyone from entering this Parliament. The oath now to be taken by members of the Executive is a real slap


in the teeth for those in Northern Ireland who have been battered by IRA atrocities and, latterly, by political batons. This is the end of the road, because most people will see this oath as depriving them of their true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, having lost the Governor as well.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider this. If he is not prepared to go as far as I have suggested, he should at least meet the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).

Mr. Powell: I find myself very much in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who said "better no oath at all than anything of this sort". Indeed, it seems derogatory to this House to prescribe an oath so meaningless and devoid of purpose as that which at present stands in the schedule.
To expect the people who are forming part of an Executive to swear to be conscientious is ludicrous. It has no compelling or binding power of any sort. It is in no way enforceable. No one could say that a man had broken his oath because he had been less than conscientious in one respect or another.
The oath goes on to say not merely that members of the Executive will fulfill their duties—and there is a pretty obvious sanction on any member of the Executive who does not—but that they must do so in the interests of Northern Ireland. Does that mean that there is a sort of mental reservation which anyone who takes even this oath can enter that he will fulfill his duties conscientiously only if and in so far as he considers them to be in the interests of Northern Ireland? This imports a whole range of doubts which would not exist but for the oath itself.
9.0 p.m.
The oath does not even end there, with the interests of Northern Ireland. It refers to
 … the interests of Northern Ireland and its people.
So it invites the person who takes this oath, binding himself by it, to draw a distinction between the interests of Northern Ireland—whatever that may mean—and the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Consider what that means—to interpret his duties in the light of those interests which he has defined for himself, then decide what he has to be conscientious about in the fulfillment of those duties. In the end that is what he has to do to fulfill his oath.

All of this started with an oath of allegiance. I will not query the policy—it is a separate issue from the wording of this oath—of prescribing an oath of allegiance, either for membership of the Assembly or for official positions in Northern Ireland. Once an oath is divested of its historic and even its sacramental character, once it has ceased to be an affirmation of a corporate belonging, which I think is as near as I can define the reality of the oath which we take at the beginning of every Parliament, then it is nothing. To attempt to find a form of words which will be inoffensive and which will give no ground for the most scrupulous and carping examination will result only in something meaningless and flatulent.

I hope that when my right hon. Friend considers that—I know he considers everything which is said in these debates, and we have been assured that there will be a Report stage—he will go through again the question of the oath and decide afresh whether it is necessary to insult both Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland with a formula of this kind.

Captain Orr: I will not delay the Committee too long. I agree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), about oaths. The taking of an oath of allegiance survives from mediaeval times. My right hon. Friend was right to describe it as sacramental in nature. Whether taking an oath of this kind has any relevance in the modern world is debatable. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)—better no oath at all than something which does not carry an historic significance.
The taking of the oath of allegiance has a peculiar and particular symbolism in Northern Ireland. The symbolism is that, when one's citizenship is under threat,


when one feels that the thing that one clings to above all is Her Majesty the Queen, in the sacramental sense, and that people are seeking to detach one from one's allegiance, one finds the ancient sacramental method of reaffirming it of some importance. This is why I think that people in Ulster are inclined to set high store upon the ancient survival of the oath of allegiance. The reason for it is deep within the people because of attempts in the past to detach them from their allegiance.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the oath in the schedule seems absolutely meaningless. I will not compete with him in pointing out its ludicrousness. There might be disagreements about the form of the oath suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell. Perhaps if he felt able to withdraw his amendment, we might express our anxieties about and dissatisfaction with this position by voting against the schedule itself.

Mr. Stanley Orme: There are two strands of argument among hon. Members opposite. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was very careful to distinguish between the oath proposed in the Bill and the reasons for the change. We would not be doing justice to this situation if we imagined that a Conservative Government had gone to the lengths of dropping the oath of allegiance simply because they thought that a fresh form of words would be more suitable. The reason it has been dropped is that in the past the oath has been abused and used to help to divide that society which so many of us want to see reunited.
Schoolteachers and even local authority road sweepers had to take the oath of allegiance. It was used to single out the Republicans from the Unionists and Loyalists. The oath had been brought into disrepute. It had become a political weapon, quite different from the oath that hon. Members take in this House in an easy way, irrespective of their point of view. It had become a political weapon: otherwise a Conservative Government would not have gone to these lengths.
In consequence, the Government and the Opposition see this change—I agree that there are incongruities in parts of

the wording—as an attempt to allow all shades of opinion to participate in the Executive and to ensure that no insurmountable barriers are erected. I know that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I disagree on whether that divided society can operate, but the road has been cleared in the sense that no barrier can be erected from inside. It cannot be said that the system will not be able to work because the oath will stand in the way.
Therefore, the Opposition support this change, which they see as practical and necessary. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his hon. Friends have rightly and with some feeling expressed their strong opposition to this change. One understands their views in an historical context, but I hope that we are looking not backward but forward to that new Assembly and the Executive which will be asked to take this new form of oath. On that basis, we support the schedule.

Mr. McMaster: I have followed with interest the argument of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which I do not accept. If his argument were correct it would be like saying that because people have burned themselves in a fire we should have no fires. I ask the same question that the hon. Member asked. Why have we changed the form of oath in Northern Ireland? The only reason for dropping the oath completely from the new Assembly and substituting this peculiar form of oath or affirmation for Members of the Executive under Clause 8 is to enable Republicans to serve on the Executive.
How far are we going in order to pander to the extreme minority in Northern Ireland? Does not the very fact that the schedule is included in the Bill make complete nonsense of Clause 1, which firmly states that
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom.
Is it not a simple duty of every citizen of the United Kingdom to owe allegiance to the Queen? Are we to say that people who do not owe a simple allegiance to the Queen are to be invited to play a part in the Executive? It seems that that is what we are saying.
How far has this Parliament lost its will to defend the United Kingdom? In the north of Ireland, we, as part of the United Kingdom, are under attack. An attack upon Northern Ireland is an attack on not just a part but the whole of the United Kingdom. This attack is being pursued with extreme savagery and viciousness. The death roll is quite appalling. It is continuing at this very moment. In those circumstances, is it right to give in?
What is the definition of treason in this country? What constitutes sedition? If anyone contemplates the downfall of the Government or of Her Majesty or any of her family, that is treason. We are altering matters in order to allow people who harbour treasonable ideas to form part of the Executive. We are being asked to do nothing less.
This is a very serious matter. I would rather see no oath than the peculiar form set out in the schedule. I would go further than that. We are going too far in our efforts to placate those who, in the last three years, have proved to be totally implacable. We are weakening the whole fibre of the British constitution by doing this. Let us make no mistake about it; to give concessions such as these to terrorism sets an awful example for the rest of the United Kingdom. The troubles that we have had in Northern Ireland and the pressures that have been exerted may well occur elsewhere. If the way in which we reply to such trouble and pressure is to make concessions such as this vital and fundamental concession, others in the community will be prepared to exert similar power and force in other parts of the United Kingdom, buoyed up by the example, in Northern Ireland, of the weakness of Her Majesty's Government and the Government's lack of determination to protect themselves and some of the most fundamental ideas in our constitution.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) went through the schedule paragraph by paragraph examining it and ridiculing it. He omitted to read the initial part which says:
I swear by almighty God … that I will uphold the laws of Northern Ireland".
To me those words are significant. They cannot be overlooked. Someone who

swears to uphold the laws of Northern Ireland swears to uphold the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill because it is part of the laws of Northern Ireland. Someone who swears to uphold those laws swears to uphold Clause 1, and that provides for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not imagine that what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) calls the extreme Republican element will be able to argue about that. Only a person who believes in change by consent in Northern Ireland will be able to accept that oath. Therefore, while I entirely accept that there are enormous problems in getting a satisfactory oath, I think that we should not overlook the considerable importance of the part of the Bill that refers to upholding the laws of Northern Ireland and the considerable consequences flowing from those words.

Mr. David Howell: As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has pointed out, this short debate has produced two distinct strands of thought. There are those of my hon. Friends who dislike this form of words and those who say that if this is what we must have, better no oath at all.
But we must accept that these declarations are deeply serious and important matters. They have a useful part to play in reminding holders of public office of the solemn nature of their responsibilities. Of course, they are not everything. In any constitution the chief guarantee of the proper and impartial performance of official duties must lie elsewhere. It must involve a sense of integrity and duty which animates those men and women called upon to perform public duties. But these important declarations should not be downgraded, and I am sure that my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland do not need to be told of the immense symbolic importance attached to such acts as the giving of oaths. I hope that they do not need to be told how strong are the feelings on both sides.
Northern Ireland is, alas, a community divided by many things, not least by ultimate constitutional aspirations. This point has been made repeatedly by some of my hon. and right hon. Friends. They have told the Government and the Committee that these ultimate constitutional


aspirations are irreconcilable, and have gone on to say that, therefore, in the foreground of events lying nearer than the ultimate, irreconcilable conflicts will develop making all power sharing impossible.
The last few years have in some senses confirmed that the future of Northern Ireland must be dark unless people are prepared to seek some common ground in areas which are short of their ultimate aspirations, where that common ground can be found, rather than for them to go off into wrangles on questions in which there is no hope of an acceptable compromise. If every matter is taken as far as their ultimate aspirations the logical truth is that there is no progress to he made. If we recognise that there is ground upon which people who do not share ultimate constitutional aspirations can come together for the good of Northern Ireland and to govern the Province, there is hope for the future. The people and the parties of Northern Ireland have a choice, as my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made clear. They can preoccupy themselves totally with constitutional aspirations and place that as the focus of all political conflict—and we all know the pattern of events for the future if that choice is followed—or they can accept that, whatever their ultimate aspirations are they do not have to be current and immediate everyday preoccupations and depend for the future on their own efforts to operate the government of Northern Ireland based on the principle of consent established in Clause 1. That is the choice. There is endless room for meeting deeply felt emotional matters with lighter comment. That is always possible in these serious matters. It is always a good game, but it is a tragic and dangerous game, particularly in the context of Ireland.
Ireland has a history of trouble caused by oaths. The present oath may not be liked but it is intended, as are other aspects of the Bill which put forward the idea of power-sharing, to be acceptable to a broad band of Protestant opinion and minority parties. Those who do not believe in power-sharing can easily say "We will have none of it. Power-sharing will not work. Therefore, it is an absurd time to bring up the question of an oath acceptable to either side."

Mr. Maginnis: Is the lion. Gentleman saying that the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen would wreck the concept of power-sharing in the new Assembly?

Mr. Howell: I was not saying any such thing. If there is to be an oath—and my right hon. Friends and I believe that there should be an oath for the Northern Ireland Executive and all those nominated under Clause 8 by the Secretary of State—it is this oath which will be acceptable for the two sides without immediately leading the conflict back to the irreconcilable issues of the different ultimate constitutional aspirations. Those who wish to change it must justify their amended wording against Irish history.
I can only ask my hon. Friends who wish to change the oath: Is the amended oath likely to be acceptable to both sides, or will it just become an immediate rallying point and cause for a further round of sectarian dispute and conflict? This is the question we must put to those seeking to amend the oath.
Those who say that there should be no oath are wrong, and those who say that we should go back to the earlier oath do not take account of the need implicit in the Bill for the sharing of power on the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend.
For those reasons I must ask the Committee to accept that the amendment is not suitable, and ask my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) if he will consider withdrawing it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Minister of State when I say that I am not only disappointed but shocked by his reply.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the oath of allegiance was abused in Northern Ireland. He mentioned schoolteachers and road sweepers compelled to take the oath to secure employment. That matter has already been dealt with in the Bill. What we are debating is an oath to be taken primarily by the Executive of Northern Ireland.
Is it really true that an oath which mentions the Head of State will make difficulties for members of the Executive when it made no difficulties in the past? Is made no difficulties at Stormont for


Monarchists and Republicans, for Unionists and Nationalists—for people of very different ultimate aspirations, to use my hon. Friend's words.
I hope that my hon. Friend will think again, and will at least agree to reexamine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) described as the meaningless words of the oath proposed.
My hon. Friend said that Irish history had been bedevilled by oaths. If he is unwilling to alter his form of words, perhaps he will consider the possibility of abandoning it and avoid bedevilling another chapter of Irish history with the question of an oath.
I am not wedded to my form of words. I do not awfully like it, but I put it forward partly to meet the views of others who do not agree with me and to try to find some common ground—to quote the hon. Member for Salford, West—between different sets of people who may be called upon to form the Executive.
I do not insist on my amendment at all. But if the Government will not even agree to think again about this important matter, if they insist on the schedule embodying this unacceptable formula, we have no other course than to resist it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment, without prejudice to any action we may take on the Question,

That this schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill.

Captain Orr: In the light of what I said earlier, and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that we received on the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I suggest that the schedule should not stand part.
I emphasise that we are not talking about an oath that elected representatives are obliged to take, an oath for the Assembly. It is an oath for the people upon whom the exercise of power in the name of Her Majesty will be devolved, as a Government of Northern Ireland, as it were. To say that it is even thinkable that people should be invited to join that Executive who are not willing to affirm their allegiance to Her Majesty shows the appalling nature of what may be in the Government's mind.
To register the fact that we think that this is highly unsatisfactory, I advise my hon. Friends to vote against the schedule.

Question put, That this schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 7.

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hamling, William
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Monro, Hector


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Body, Richard
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Orme, Stanley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Palmer, Arthur


Carlisle, Mark
Hunter, Adam
Perry Ernest G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lawson, George
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Faulds, Andrew
McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mackie, John
Shersby, Michael


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Skinner, Dennis


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Stallard, A. W


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Torney, Tom




Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
White, Roger (Gravesend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Dame Irene
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Marcus Fox.


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Younger, Hn. George





NOES


Bell, Ronald
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMaster, Stanley
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and Mr. John E. Maginnis.


Molyneaux, James
Soref, Harold

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Mr, Stratton Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 36, leave out line 24.
Curiously enough, I hope to have the support of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) for this Amendment, since she and I are the only persons in this House who attended Queen's University. Perhaps she has an interest in and affection for it. I had better explain the amendment carefully, therefore.
Schedule 6 repeals Section 64(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which provides that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will not be able
to alter the constitution or divert the property of, or repeal or diminish any existing exemption or immunity enjoyed by the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, or the Queen's University of Belfast, unless and until the proposed alteration, diversion, repeal, or diminution is aproved
Then it sets out the procedure and goes on to state—
in the case of the Queen's University of Belfast by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely: The Senate and the Academic Council, and the Convocation of the University:
That is an important safeguard for the university in terms of protection from a regional Parliament or Assembly. The university puts considerable store and importance on having its rights protected in this way by the Government of Ireland Act. It could be said that there is an entirely new situation—that there is an additional University, of Coleraine, and that it does not have the protective cover of that Act. My answer to that would be that the University of Coleraine is protected by the charter that

it has received from the Privy Council and that, equally, most of the universities throughout Britain have similar protection in their charters. Therefore, I think it essential that Queen's and the University of Coleraine should be in a similar position.
There may be a need for a completely new charter for Queen's University. I hear that there are some thoughts on that matter. If there were a new charter it would have written into it a form of protection similar to that contained in Section 64(1). But until there is a new charter this power under Section 64(1) should be maintained, so as to protect the position of the university.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the very clear way in which he set out this important point concerning the need for Queen's University to have protection. In fact, however, the amendment would not provide the protection that he seeks and which is necessary for Queen's University. Either way, Section 64(1) has to go, but what is needed instead is protection of an appropriate kind, and I do not think that that can be achieved simply by means of a modification order.
I would propose to my hon. Friend that an undertaking be given by the Government to return to this matter at a later stage and see if we can find the words necessary to meet the requirement of Queen's University. This is a very complicated matter, and a great deal of consultation will be needed, but if my hon. Friend will accept this undertaking I hope that he will be good enough to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. McAliskey: Sharing the interest of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) in matters concerning Queen's University, I have a recollection of some of my former activities while serving my apprenticeship in that august establishment. One of the most impressive moments was at a time of acute


housing shortage in Belfast, when a number of us felt it only just and proper that, certain properties being in a fit state for accommodation and being the property of the university, the university would be fulfilling its social obligations to the community if such houses were used for the homeless or ill-housed in the poverty-stricken areas of the Shanklin and Sandy Row. We found that we came up against the very bodies the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the Convocation and the academic board—because these houses were the property of the university.
We also found at the time, as privileged members of society—being students at Queen's University—that many of the facilities that were open to us on the property of Queen's University were not open to other members of the Belfast community who did not have the same opportunity of attending that establishment. I should certainly like to see the integrity and the rights of the university preserved, and its academic pursuits not controlled by any assembly, but my own opinion is that when this matter is dealt with again by the House serious consideration should be given to the vast amount of property owned by the university and not put to any good use by it, that might more usefully be put to the use of the Sandy Row community.

Mr. John Wells: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State can help me. This is perhaps the most important measure affecting the entire United Kingdom since the Common Market debate. At the present time the Liberal Party is very prominent in its electioneering, its chuntering and its general goings-on. Yet, in front of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) I see a mile of empty benches—well, half a mile. Where are those hon. Members from the Liberal Party who have been so busy telling us how important they are to the United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has sat through all these debates. Can he tell me how many Liberal Members have been present at any time——

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot tell his hon. Friend that, because I will not allow him.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his sympathetic reply to this narrow but important point. In view of his generous undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is one point which has been intriguing me about Schedule 6 ever since the Bill was published. This schedule deals with the enactments that will be repealed following the passing of this measure. At the bottom of pages 44, 45 and 46, respectively, I see that we are repealing parts of the Botswana Independence Act 1966, the Swaziland Independence Act 1968 and the Tonga Act 1970.
I am sure that there is a good reason for this, because I have great faith in those drawing up our legislation.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member's faith is fully justified. There is an excellent reason for this. It is that the parts concerned contain savings for the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament—that is, they allow the Northern Ireland Parliament to amend the specific provisions of the Acts in question even though they were passed after the appointed day for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. For the purposes of a Constitutional Bill, which we hope will eventually become an Act, it is necessary to repeal these parts. That is the answer to the question and I hope that the hon. Member feels that it justifies his faith in our legislators.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DENTAL SERVICES)

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: In raising the need for an urgent improvement in the prevention aspect of National Health Service dentistry I am fully aware of the considerable achievement of the National Health Service dental service in its curative role over the past 25 years. The number of dental courses has been doubled over this period and the number of persons over the age of 30 who have lost all their own teeth has been cut by half.
At the same time I am sure the Minister would agree that the state of the nation's teeth remains very bad and that enormous improvements lie within our grasp if certain relatively small but important reforms are accepted and implemented. Hence my appeal tonight.
The facts are not in dispute, because they are drawn from the official Government survey published in 1971 entitled "Adult Dental Health in England and Wales". This survey found that the average adult who still retained at least some of his own teeth had a staggering total of 19 decayed, missing or filled teeth. Furthermore, over half of all the persons in Britain over the age of 45 had lost all their teeth. This is by no means inevitable or likely, because it is double the number in the United States. It remains true that virtually all school children suffer from gum disease. In their late thirties nearly half the population experience the disease in its terminal stages and are about to lose teeth as a result. In the late fifties the future is just less than 95 per cent. By any standards this is surely a very unsatisfactory and deplorable record, though still a very costly one. At present we have the reputation of being the world's most toothless nation, and we pay out hundreds of millions of pounds a year for this distinction. Not only is tooth disease the second most costly affliction with a direct charge to the Exchequer of some £120 million a year but indirectly it results in a loss of 2 million working days a year and some 70,000 bouts sickness for which benefit is paid.
It seems clear that responsiblity for this lamentable state of affairs lies partly with public apathy but also partly with a system of dental care which is not geared to the general medical switch from cure to prevention.
At present dentists have little incentive to educate the general public in proper dental health, and surveys have shown that only one in 50 patients claims to have been taught how to brush his teeth, a very important and basic operation which very few people do properly.
Against this background I believe that there are several new policies which the Government ought to adopt. The key to the prevention objective is, in my view, widespread fluoridation of water supplies. I am aware that this is hotly contested by a very small but highly vociferous minority, but I submit to the Minister that scientific agreement on the desirability of water fluoridation is overwhelming, and I believe that that is a view which is also firmly held by the Ministry. I quote from a departmental leaflet which summarises the fluoridation studies in the United Kingdom and the results achieved after 11 years, Report on Public Health and Medical Subjects, No. 122, HMSO, 1969:
In the fluorinated study areas the amount of decay in the temporary teeth of children aged from 3 to 7 inclusive fell by as much as half. The number of children free from decay more than doubled and the number of children with 10 or more decayed teeth fell by more than four-fifths. In the permanent teeth of children aged 8, 9 and 10 the reduction in the amount of decay has been about one-third and there has been a substantial increase in the proportion with no dental decay. These changes are in marked contrast to those which took place in the unfluorinated control areas where the amount of decay fell by only one-fifth in the 3 to 7 age group and by only one-twentieth in the age group 8 to 10.
That is an official departmental publication and it puts the view very strongly and well.
I would make just one other small quote which is also very significant:
Although fluoridation in Kilmarnock ceased in 1962 studies of the dental health of children in that town 0and its control area were continued. The findings are very interesting, for they show how, again, dental cases in young Kilmarnock children who have had little or no fluoride is climbing back to its pre-fluoridation level.


That indicates overwelmingly, clearly, and consistently with other evidence the importance of fluoridation.
It is almost universally accepted by all reasonable persons that fluoridation of tap water up to a concentration of one part per million reduces the incidence of dental decay by half among children living in treated areas, and its early benefit lasts throughout life, and it is also totally safe.
However—and this is the point—there has been extreme pusillanimity. Only some 10 of England's 221 water systems now use this prophylactic—that is just about half, or less—although local authorities covering as much as two-thirds of the population have now decided that they are in favour in principle. The discrepancy arises because the water incoming areas are not coterminous with the local authority areas, and if a single minority local authority objects the change-over is, under the present regulations, blocked.
For example, Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster are in the catchment of one water area but the opposition of Doncaster has frustrated the will of the other two. In the case of Walsall, West Bromwich, Warley, and Dudley, Dudley has frustrated the decision of the other three. Does the Minister think that this is democracy? Is it not a travesty of democracy that the long-term dental interests of millions of children should be sacrificed to the blocking manoeuvres of a no doubt sincere but very small and, I believe, misguided minority?
Even more blatant is the example of the Isle of Wight, which is an entirely discrete area, which gets its water from no other place and whose water goes to no other place. The county council has three times voted in favour of water fluoridation but has been thwarted by the point-blank refusal of the water board—on what authority is unclear.
The first request I make of the Minister is that, as water fluoridation is so supremely important in preventive dentistry, the ten water undertakings that have refused to fluoridate on principle, even though the relevant local authorities have all voted in favour, be required to do so unless there are strong, technical, viable reasons why they should not do so.
>
Two of the arguments that are put against water fluoridation I hope the Minister will disregard. The first, which is more of an emotional reaction, is that it tampers with a natural process. In fact, nature has already been interfered with, in the sense that in parts of North-East Essex, parts of South Derbyshire and the Hartlepools, there is already well over one part per million of fluoride in the tap water, and sometimes five parts, and the fluoridation is having to be diluted. It is entirely wrong to suggest that the insertion of fluoride into the water is unnatural.
Secondly, it is argued that there can always be topical or self-administered applications of fluoride for those individuals who particularly wish it. But, again, it is known that these applications are enormously less effective in countering dental decay than is systematic fluoridation, and they are certainly unlikely to breach the major class and regional barriers in dental care.
Cost cannot be considered to be a serious objection. The cost of fluoridation has remained at about 5p per head of the population per year. What is proposed is to cut dental decay by half at a cost of only about £2·3 million a year, and that is an excellent bargain.
I appeal to the Minister to make his position crystal clear on the question of water fluoridation, which I am convinced is the nub of the matter. Is he in favour of water fluoridation on the grounds of its immense and unequalled preventive potential, or is he not? If he is, as I suspect, does he agree that less than 100 per cent. unanimous agreement applied to local authorities in a given area is not only democratic, but proper and reasonable? Does he agree, for example, that a two-thirds majority would suffice for a decision on the introduction of water fluoridation? Whether it is two-thirds, three-quarters or half is not so much the point. The point is that it should be less than 100 per cent. I believe that this is fundamental not only for its own sake and for the sake of the children who would gain, in their millions, but because it would transform the whole orientation of the dental profession decisively towards prevention.
If the Minister is seriously in favour but fears that there may be political


difficulties, he may like to consult his Shadow in this matter——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Fox.]

Mr. Meacher: I was saying that if the Minister feels that there are political difficulties about this matter, he may care to consult his Shadow and seek to construct an agreed bipartisan formula, bearing in mind its overriding importance. It might be possible.
I want also to comment on the attitude of the Department as revealed in regard to the excellent television programme "Open Door", prepared by members of King's College Hospital Dental School. In a letter to an hon. Member the Minister said that a working party composed of representatives of the Government and the British Dental Association was examining this matter. I hope that this is not to be used as a further excuse for delay because the matter has been thrashed out endlessly, and I believe the results to be entirely clear. We now need action and the exercise of some political will.
The Minister also said—and I find this rather disturbing—that there was insufficient evidence to justify the use of any method of fluoridation other than the fluoridation of water supplies. He went on to say that these measures were expensive and that the best use of funds dictated the continued use of existing restorative treatment. I hope that the Department will take the view, which is surely the correct one, that there is sufficient published evidence to show the efficacy of topical fluoride applications, provided that they are carried out correctly. I hope that the Minister will also feel that even if the costs are equal it is far better to prevent disease and to have a sound tooth rather than one which has been mutilated by caries and then filled, however beautiful the restoration may be.
My second strong request, therefore, is that dentists should have an in-built incentive to promote preventive care. I should have thought that the present system, with the payment of a fee for each item of service, prejudiced rational therapy. Is it not anomalous that the
>
application of a fluoride solution, which in my view is effective in preventing decay but which leaves no trace, is not rewarded by any fee, whereas the application of a solution of silver nitrate, which is a relatively useless procedure, is rewarded with a fee because it leaves an ugly black stain and so can be checked?
More seriously, is it not disturbing that undergraduate students who increasingly are being taught these preventive techniques feel frustrated when they enter general practice and find that they cannot use these techniques and must resort to a private fee, charged to those who can afford it, if they are to put them into operation? The Minister will know that many dentists advise privately for a fee, and the case has been brought to my notice of a dentist who is reported to charge £3 each for teaching children how to brush their teeth. He takes children in groups of six for 30 minutes, thereby making £18 per half-hour as a result of private practice.
Does not the Minister think it highly anomalous that restorative dentistry should be available under the National Health Service, whereas preventive dentistry is available at present only in the private sector?
Even within the present pay system the Government could provide a real economic incentive to dentists to do important preventive work. I know that the Minister takes the view that there is nothing to stop this taking place within the NHS already, but I ask him to be realistic. At present, to carry out preventive work of any length, as against inserting fillings, is wholly uneconomic. I am sure that dentists would confirm that. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman must know that the Department takes the strict and puritanical view that what cannot be seen to be done cannot be paid for within the NHS. That is putting it rather more crudely and brutally than he might like but that is what, in effect, it comes down to.
In particular, I ask the Minister to introduce scale fees for several items of preventive work which are at present excluded. I stress especially the topical application of fluoride solutions or gels, instruction in oral hygiene techniques, including the use of disclosing tablets, the application of fissure sealants, which


are extremely important and can be checked and which block up potential sources of decay later, and instruction in dietary techniques.
I see no reason why these items should not be included within the scale of fees under the existing system. To have them provided within the NHS would not only do a great deal of good for the population but would begin to turn the dental profession markedly more towards prevention.
There are several other policies that I believe the Government could and should adopt where only lip service has so far been paid. First, the Government should promote a more vigorous national campaign for dental health by having proper dental care taught systematically in the primary schools—it is virtually impossible to teach teenagers or young adults anything; it has to be done very early on—and by advertising more forcibly the carious effects of certain foodstuffs. If the power of the cigarette manufacturers has begun to be challenged and taken on—albeit rather weakly, so far—I believe that the power of the sugar and flour manufacturers equally needs to be challenged in this respect, because of the extremely harmful results of those substances.
The Government should sponsor a sustained campaign—and I mean a sustained campaign, because I think that it has been partial and fragmentary in the past—to get the adult population to attend dental clinics regularly—since only about two-thirds do so at present—and not merely when pain is felt or decay has gone so far that it is beyond repair.
It is clear that for the purposes of such a campaign, dental charges should be reduced rather than increased, or, as I would argue, preferably removed altogether. I cannot expect the Minister to agree with that, but I put it to him that the payment of half the cost of dental treatment up to a maximum of £10 constitutes a deterrent when it is added to the emotional deterrent that so many people feel in visiting the dentist. However, I am glad to note that that is beginning to change.
I think that the lowering of the exemption age limit from 21 to 18 was an undesirable act of policy and should be

reversed, since it removes from free dental treatment the category in which the incidence of dental decay is near its peak.
The imposition of VAT on toothpaste, combined with its removal from chocolates and sweets, is clearly a shocking decision, which subordinates good dentistry to short-term political ends. I hope that on further consideration it will be reversed at an early opportunity.
Lastly, I ask that many more hygienists and auxiliaries should be trained as probably the most economic means of countering chronic gum disease. At present, there are only about 500 oral hygienists, which means about one per 20 dentists, on average, when the target should be about one to two dentists. This is another instance in which expenditure now would involve considerable cost saving in the long run.
The demands that I have made tonight are moderate. They are backed by the British Dental Association and by all progressive members of the dental profession. Of course, more money is needed for National Health Service dentistry and we need more dentists since, relative to population, we have only half the proportion that one finds in West Germany and the United States, and only one-quarter of the proportion in Sweden.
I have deliberately geared my requests to the more specific and directly practicable measures. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to respond favourably to what I believe is a crucial public health issue.

10.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the full and clear case that he has assembled and put forward to the House for a broad reappraisal of some priorities and guidelines for dental treatment.
The rather lugubrious set of figures about dental health which the hon. Member put to the House, which perhaps made even your teeth ache, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was, nevertheless, only too near the bone—if that is the right word to use—but the hon. Gentleman went on to open up an area that is important and valuable. The Government welcome any development that may lead to improved


dental health, and particularly developments that are likely to reduce the ever-growing demand for the traditional forms of conservation of natural teeth. I fully accept that prevention is always preferable to expensive, and sometimes disagreeable, cures.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the enthusiasm of those who are concerned to promote preventive dentistry—a concern which I accept to be wholly desirable—has, largely as a result of recent Press and television publicity—which the hon. Gentleman may have seen—led some sections of the public to believe that there is available a series of treatments which, if made available generally to National Health Service patients, would eliminate dental caries and the need for the more traditional forms of conservative and restorative treatments altogether. That, I am sure, is a misleading oversimplification.
I accept the thesis put forward by the hon. Gentleman as his first priority. The simplest, least expensive and most effective form of preventing dental disease is fluoridation of public water supplies. Even fluoridation does not eliminate dental caries altogether, however, though the incidence is reduced, as the hon. Gentleman said, by as much as half, and no other measure so far discovered is as effective. That is why the Government continue to support fluoridation as a proven and practical method of reducing dental disease and have urged local authorities to make arrangements for its introduction in their areas as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman—again fairly I concede—wants the Government to take a tougher and more explicit line in that direction. I must ask him to weigh the difficulties with which we are faced, even though he makes an appeal that we should introduce a bi-partisan approach to overcome some of the difficulties.
The Government are faced with a situation met by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power. Some people have strong feelings about the introduction of fluoridation on ethical grounds, and a rather larger number have stronger feelings about forcing even small groups of the population to submit to practices with which they disagree or disapprove of no ethical grounds.
We may find that a measure introduced into the House of Commons, even on a bi-partisan basis by the two Front Benches, would be severely let down by the reception it received from hon. Members on the back benches. It is by no means as easy and straightforward to introduce such a measure as may seem to be the case, but I give this hint, and no more, that the situation will change, at least in the direction of the administration, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the reorganisation of the National Health Service will lead on 1st April 1974 to the transference of at least part of the powers in this field from local authorities to the central Department. We shall then have a new situation which we shall have to appraise—it will not be easy to appraise it—much more from the point of view of power being located centrally than is the case at the moment.
The other preventive measures which currently are attracting considerable public attention——

Mr. Meacher: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of water fluoridation, even within the new local government structure there will, I think, still be the problem of whether 100 per cent. agreement among the relevant authorities in any water catchment area is required. The Minister has not answered my question, whether he agrees that 100 per cent. is a unique requirement in this case, which does not, so far as I know, exist in any parallel situation. Would it not be fair if that were reduced to, say, 75 per cent. or 67 per cent. or some similar percentage that he might care to choose? Would that not be fair and proper as well as democratic?

Mr. Alison: I should want to weigh carefully what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot commit myself on that at present. We are confronted with real difficulties from the point of view of the central Government under the present set-up, but that situation will change, at least so far as responsibility goes. One central authority will be responsible for policy in a matter in which the policy responsibility now lies in a very dispersed and diffused way throughout the local government sector.
The other preventive measures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which are currently attracting considerable public


attention, are broadly of two kinds—those which can be carried out only by a dental surgeon or trained ancillary working under his supervision, and those which may be applied by patients themselves. The former include topical applications of fluorides and fissure sealants; the latter fluoride tablets, mouth-rinses and, of course, effective methods of tooth brushing and personal oral hygiene.
I was interested in this context to read the inaugural address of the new President of the British Dental Association, Professor F. E. Lawton, who said last week:
Alternative methods of administration of fluoride by tablets, in milk, or table salt, or by incorporation in tooth paste are less effective than water fluoridation and, since they depend on co-operation by the individual, are less easy to control. All other ways of protecting the tooth surfaces require the use of trained personnel … none of the classical methods of individual topical application is able to prevent as many cavities as could be treated in the same working time.
He went on to say that supervised mouth rinsing or toothbrushing with diluted fluoride solutions is less effective in reduction of caries and that, although they can be administered to groups of children at a time—I am left stunned by the notion of a practitioner netting 18 quid in half an hour in this context, but I must leave that aside—they represent uneconomical use of dentists' time.
Of fissure sealants he said:
Further research is needed to establish the long-term effectiveness of these materials to determine the frequency at which they must be applied and to ensure that the maturation of the enamel which normally renders it increasingly resistant to caries attack is not significantly interfered with.
It is clear that the general adoption of these measures is not as simple as it appears at first sight. First, it poses a considerable manpower problem. Ever since 1948 there has been a shortage of dentists, and although, as a result of the programme of expanding dental schools which successive Governments have supported, we are now, I believe, within sight of overcoming that shortage, there is no doubt that at present the extra work load involved in making topical application of fluoride freely available to all children could be accepted only at the cost of diverting effort and resources from the more traditional forms of dental treatment, the demand for which will

continue unabated for a long time to come. Moreover, I understand that topical application is effective only if it is repeated at regular intervals—this is what Professor Lawton was hinting at—perhaps as often as twice a year.
The hon. Member urges the Government to train more hygienists; that would be an essential corollary to any decision to make preventive measures more widely available and it is a possibility that we are actively exploring. Although hygienists can be trained in a much shorter time and the facilities required for their training are much less elaborate than those required for the training of dental students, obviously, expansion of such facilities is not something that can be done overnight, as the lion. Member's figures of the numbers per 100,000 of the population clearly demonstrate.
Against this background, can we be sure that the public would readily accept even longer waiting times for appointments for the more conventional treatments? Can we be sure, too, that patients and their parents would be prepared to co-operate to the extent that is essential for these measures to succeed? Even the self-administered measures require at least initial instruction by dentists or ancillary dental workers, and in some cases would depend on the willing and continued co-operation of schools and school, teachers as well.
The hon. Member urges the Government actively to promote a programme of dental health education, including a campaign to encourage patients to visit their dentists regularly. I have no doubt that, to quote Professor Lawton again,
The one way in which worthwhile and effective dental health education does take place is in individual confrontation while the patient is receiving treatment in the surgery.
With this in mind, whatever their attitude to charges, successive Governments have preserved the right of all patients to a free initial examination—up to twice a year for adults and three times a year for the priority classes. This is a not inconsiderable incentive to patients to visit the dentist regularly, but though last year general dental practitioners in England examined more than 20·9 million patients, regrettably the average adult is still not as regular an attender as ideally he should be.


I am not sure how far publicity campaigns of the kind the hon. Member suggests would help to overcome public inertia. In 1971 my Department supported a British Dental Association poster campaign to encourage regular visits to the dentist in a number of test areas. The results were inconclusive since, though the number of courses of treatment provided increased in the test areas, so did those in control areas. We did not know how much we had been able to achieve.
I agree with the hon. Member that there is need for further research and experiment in dental health education designed to bring home to the public at large the importance of oral hygiene and particularly the part which each individual can and must play in caring for his teeth. How to get this message across to the maximum number of people is a matter on which the Government must look, as we do, to the Health Education Council for expert advice, and we are looking to it with greater financial encouragement.
In the first 25 years of the National Health Service the dental profession has had remarkable success in educating the public in the benefits to general health of good dental health. It would be a tragedy if the too precipitate diversion of resources to preventive treatment for children were to leave dentists and ancillaries with insufficient time to meet the conventional needs of other patients or, because we could not secure the high degree of patient co-operation and self-help that is essential for success, general standards of dental health that we have so laboriously built up were to be allowed to deteriorate.

Mr. Meacher: Is that not an argument precisely for water fluoridation? Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point whether he is prepared to consider paying dentists for the kind of preventive attention which I have briefly dealt with and including it within a scale of fees? That is very important.

Mr. Alison: We have touched on fluoridation. The inclusion of these forms of treatment in the scale of fees and charges would have to be negotiated with the profession. But one can get free advice on this now, during the course of the examination. So at least the possibility of this can be brought home to the public, even as things are, without any

charges being involved. But it involves the real possibility, given a relatively static manpower situation, that one can only increase this form of treatment at the direct cost of reductions in the conventional forms. Alas, the topical forms of treatment are not one-off and once-and-for-all. One does not, as it were, make oneself waterproof for life.
All this is not to say that the Government are complacent about the dental services available to National Health Service patients or to imply that we are not interested in preventive dentistry. Research to assess and, we hope, to improve the efficacy of these services is being actively pursued with Government support and encouragement at several centres. Moreover, the Working Party on Dental Services, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, is actively considering this and other related problems, particularly preventive dentistry. I understand that my right hon. Friends the health Ministers are likely to receive an interim report on the subject of preventive dentistry from the working party very shortly.
Bearing in mind the limitations on resources generally and the other factors that I have mentioned, I am sure that it is right to proceed cautiously, weighing carefully the consequences of introducing new treatments in order to ensure that the balance of our dental services is not disturbed to the detriment of the dental health of the people of this country.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE CARDS (ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS)

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: My purpose is to question the adequacy of methods to prevent national insurance cards being issued to illegal immigrants. This is an important question, and I shall necessarily be extraordinarily brief.
The matter arises out of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in reply to a Question yesterday. It is important that the point should be made clear that this is essentially the matter of the method of controlling immigration. It concerns the mechanics of control. We


are not saying that a whole new class of people should suddenly become liable to immigration control. We are exploring ways and means whereby the present regulations can be enforced. It is, therefore, absolutely a question of enforcement.
There is a danger, perhaps, in underestimating illegal immigration, and I think this was the pitfall that the Guardian fell into this morning in its first leader. I mention the Guardian because of its position in race relations and its reporting of the subject, which is of such a standard that the newspaper has a high influence in this area. I do not agree with it that this amounts to some kind of introduction of pass laws into this country, nor can I agree with it when it says that the vast majority of illegal immigrants coming into this country, or about to come in, are simply people who have jumped the queue. The evidence that we are getting that comes from the Embassy and the immigration office in Pakistan establishes that this is not the case. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether he will make a further announcement of the details of any experiments which may have resulted in this new scheme.

10.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) for raising this subject. I calculate that I have about two minutes in which to reply. I am grateful to him also for putting the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier in the week into perspective. This is emphatically not a witch hunt. It is primarily to help the Department to get accurate information which is required for national insurance purposes, and it

is in the direct interests of the people concerned because their entitlement to benefit depends upon this.
However, if, in the process, suspicion of illegal entry appears, the immigration service will be informed. I do not believe that any law-abiding citizen would object to that.
Perhaps I can make clear that none of this in any way alters the arrangement which already exists about confidential and personal information. Instructions which embody the Department's longstanding policy provide that the information in any of the records concerning individuals is to be regarded as strictly confidential and is not to be disclosed to third parties without the consent of the person concerned. Exceptionally, information, but not files, can be disclosed in the departmental and public interest to other Departments or public bodies to prevent duplication of payments from public funds to meet statutory or welfare requirements and to assist the police in the prosecution of cases other than trivial crime.
Some of our local offices in the West Midlands have as a matter of practice since 1970 asked for a passport or other document from those who enter this country. This is done irrespective of nationality. The experiment has worked well. It has been valuable, particularly in the production of records, and all we are now proposing is that, having tried it out in one area and proved its value, it should be extended to the rest of the country. I hope, therefore, that in the few moments I have had to explain this I have been able to put the matter in perspective.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.